Case C-138/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
Date: 2008-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, competition, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, public contract, works contract

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/9

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what
criteria may the national courts take into account in the
context of that review,
in particular in the case that the
contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial
body corresponding to the registered office of the service
provider, but to a different judicial body which is located
close to that registered office?

3. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol
on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty
on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European
Community and the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for
the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their
own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling
has been made at the same time as making that reference?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief
AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa
Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-138/08)

(2008/C 183/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH

Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbi-
zottság

Intervener: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

time-limit granted to Member States for implementing that
directive had not yet expired, so that the directive had not
been incorporated into national law?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, this
court further asks whether, in the case of negotiated proce-
dures with publication of a contract notice, — having regard
that Article 44(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC
to the fact
provides that
the number of candidates
invited shall be sufficient to ensure genuine competition’ —
the limitation of the number of suitable candidates should be
interpreted as meaning that in the second stage — that of
invariably be a
awarding the contract — there must
minimum number of candidates (three)?

‘[i]n any event

3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, this
court further asks the Court of Justice whether the require-
ment that ‘there be a sufficient number of suitable candi-
dates’, under Article 22(3) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (‘Directive 93/37’), should be inter-
preted as meaning that where the minimum number of
suitable candidates invited to take part is not reached (three),
the procedure cannot continue to the stage of invitation to
tender?

4. If the Court of Justice replies to the third question in the
negative, this court further asks whether the second para-
graph of Article 22(2) of Directive 93/37 — in the rules on
restricted procedures, according to which ‘[i]n any event, the
number of candidates invited to tender shall be sufficient to
ensure genuine competition’ — is applicable to two-stage
negotiated procedures, governed by Article 22(3)?

(1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 —
Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

(Case C-139/08)

(2008/C 183/17)

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

1. Is the procedure laid down in Article 44(3) of Directive
2004/18/EC, which replaced Article 22 of Council Directive
93/37/EEC (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, applicable where the
procurement procedure was initiated at a time when Direc-
tive 2004/18/EC (2) had already entered into force, but the

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe