Case C-61/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento — Italy) — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — National legislation — Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement — Right to an effective remedy — Dissuasive fees — Judicial review of administrative decisions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Effectiveness)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, administrative court, appeal, payment, public contract








C_2015389EN.01000501.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento — Italy) — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme and Others
(Case C-61/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - National legislation - Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement - Right to an effective remedy - Dissuasive fees - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Effectiveness))
(2015/C 389/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona San Valentino — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

Intervening parties: Associazione Infermieristica D & F Care, Camera degli Avvocati Amministrativisti, Camera Amministrativa Romana, Associazione dei Consumatori Cittadini Europei, Coordinamento delle associazioni e dei comitati di tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Associazione dei giovani amministrativisti (AGAmm), Ordine degli Avvocati di Roma, Società italiana degli avvocati amministrativisti (SIAA), Ordine degli Avvocati di Trento, Consiglio dell’ordine degli Avvocati di Firenze, Medical Systems SpA

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires the payment of court fees such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings when an action relating to public procurement is brought before administrative courts.










2)


Article 1 of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness do not preclude the charging of multiple court fees to an individual who brings several court actions concerning the same award of a public contract or that individual from having to pay additional court fees in order to be able to raise supplementary pleas concerning the same award of a public contract within ongoing judicial proceedings. However, in the event of objections being raised by a party concerned, it is for the national court to examine the subject-matter of the actions submitted by an individual or the pleas raised by that individual within the same proceedings. If the national court finds that the subject-matter of those actions is not in fact separate or does not amount to a significant enlargement of the subject-matter of the dispute that is already pending, it is required to relieve that individual of the obligation to pay cumulative court fees.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.