Case C-274/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2009 — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau — Joined parties: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. and Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz
Date: 2009-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, civil defence, contract, first aid, health costs, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public service, service concession








C_2009267EN.01002801.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2009 — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau — Joined parties: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. and Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz
(Case C-274/09)
2009/C 267/50
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler

Defendant: Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

Joined parties: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. and Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz

Questions referred

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Community for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) (‘the Directive’) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 234 EC:






1.


Is a contract relating to the supply of services (here, rescue services) under the terms of which the contracting authority does not make a direct payment of consideration to the contractor, but:






(a)


the usage fee for the services to be provided is set by negotiation between the contractor and third parties who are contracting authorities (here, social security institutions),










(b)


if agreement is not reached provision is made for a decision by an arbitration board established to this end, whose decision is subject to review by State courts, and










(c)


the fee is paid to the contractor not directly by the users, but in regular payments on account by a central settlement office whose services the contractor is statutorily required to call upon,




to be regarded for that reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Directive as distinct from a service contract for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of the Directive?










2.


If the first question referred is to be answered in the negative, is there a service concession where the operating risk connected with the public services is limited because:






(a)


under a statutory provision, the usage fees for the provision of the services are to be based on the costs that can be estimated in accordance with economic principles applicable to undertakings and that are consistent with proper provision of services, economical and cost-efficient management and efficient organisation,










(b)


the usage fees are due from solvent social security institutions,










(c)


a certain exclusivity of exploitation is guaranteed in the contractually stipulated area,




but the contractor assumes this limited risk entirely?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.