Case C-406/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Queen's Bench Division), Leeds District Registry, made on 18 September 2008 — Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, public contract, software

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/23

the

3. If BH is covered by the legislative implementation of the
Directive, do the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive
concerning ‘adequate protection and guarantees to enable them to
perform properly the duties which have been assigned to them’
preclude an implementation of Article 7 of the Directive in
section 8 of
[Law on informing and consulting
employees], which reads as follows: ‘The representatives who are
to be informed and consulted on behalf of the employees shall be
protected against dismissal or other adverse consequences for their
conditions of employment in the same manner as union representa-
tives in the same or a similar professional field’, if the implemen-
tation does not contain a high standard of protection against
dismissal for professional groups which are not covered by a
collective agreement?

(1) OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice (England and Wales)
(Queen's Bench Division),
Leeds District Registry, made on 18 September 2008 —
Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority

(Case C-406/08)

(2008/C 301/36)

Language of the case: English

proceedings are to be brought promptly and in any event
within 3 months from the date when grounds for the
bringing of the proceedings first arose, unless the Court
considers that there is good reason for extending the period,
to be interpreted, in light of Directive 89/665/EEC (2), Arti-
cles 1 and 2, and the Community law principle of equiva-
lence and the Community law requirement for effective legal
protection, and/or the principle of effectiveness, and having
regard to any other relevant principles of EC law, as confer-
ring an individual and unconditional right upon the tenderer
against the contracting authority such that the time for the
bringing of proceedings challenging such a tender exercise
and award starts running as from the date when the
tenderer knew or ought to have known that the procure-
ment procedure and award infringed EC public procurement
law or as from the date of breach of the applicable public
procurement provisions; and

(b) in either event how is a national court then to apply (i) any
requirement for proceedings to be brought promptly and
(ii) any discretion as to extending the national
limitation
period for the bringing of such proceedings?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of

the
Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and
public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
to the application of review procedures to the award of public
supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, p. 33).

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Appeal brought on 23 September 2008 by Sviluppo Italia
Basilicata SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July
2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v
Commission of the European Communities

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniplex (UK) Ltd

Defendant: NHS Business Services Authority

Questions referred

Where an economic operator is challenging in national proceed-
ings the award of a framework agreement by a contracting
authority following a public procurement exercise in which he
was a tenderer and which was required to be conducted in
accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC (1) (and applicable imple-
menting national provisions), and is
in those proceedings
seeking declarations and damages for breach of applicable
public procurement provisions as regards that exercise and
award:

(Case C-414/08 P)

(2008/C 301/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (represented by:
F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

(a) is a national provision such as Regulation 47(7)(b) of the
Public Contracts Regulations 2006 which states that those

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European