Case C-206/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2008-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, service concession, water supply, water treatment

C 247/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer
Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 —
Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreis-
gemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs-
und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-206/08)

(2008/C 247/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Land-
kreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha)

Respondent: Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsge-
sellschaft mbH

Questions referred

1. Is a contract for the supply of services (here, the supply of
water and treatment of waste water), the content of which
does not provide for the contracting authority to make a
direct payment of consideration to the supplier but for the
supplier to be afforded the right to collect consideration
under private law from third parties, to be classified for that
reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of
Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordi-
nating the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), as
distinct from a service contract for pecuniary interest within
the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/17?

2. If

the first question is answered in the negative, does a
contract of the kind described in the first question constitute
a service concession if the risk connected with operating the

service in question, because of
the rules of public law
governing it (compulsory connection and usage; prices calcu-
lated on a break-even basis), is significantly limited from the
outset — that is to say, even if the contracting authority
were to provide the service itself — but the supplier assumes
that limited risk in full or at least to a predominant extent?

3. If the second question is also answered in the negative, is
Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17 to be interpreted as
meaning that the degree of risk connected with operating the
service, particularly the marketing risk, must in qualitative
terms be comparable to that which normally exists under
conditions in a free market with more than one competing
tenderer?

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi
lodged on 2 June 2008 —
Városi Bíróság (Hungary)

Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

(Case C-243/08)

(2008/C 247/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budaörsi Városi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pannon GSM Zrt.

Defendant: Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi