Case C-27/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Participation in a call for tenders — Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria — Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, national law, principle of proportionality, transparency in decision-making








C_2016287EN.01000802.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/8





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl
(Case C-27/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Participation in a call for tenders - Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria - Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))
(2016/C 287/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pippo Pizzo

Defendant: CRGT Srl

Interested parties and interveners: Autorità Portuale di Messina, Messina Sud Srl, Francesco Todaro, Myleco Sas

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 47 and 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an economic operator to rely on the capacities of one or more third-party entities for the purpose of satisfying the minimum requirements for participating in a tendering procedure which are only partially satisfied by that operator.










2.


The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from being excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract as a result of that economic operator’s non-compliance with an obligation which does not expressly arise from the documents relating to that procedure or out of the national law in force, but from an interpretation of that law and those documents and from the incorporation of provisions into those documents by the national authorities or administrative courts. Accordingly, the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an economic operator from being allowed to regularise its position and comply with that obligation within a period of time set by the contracting authority.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.