Case C-387/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency — Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators — Article 48(3) — Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities — Article 51 — Possibility to supplement the tender — Article 45(2)(g) — Exclusion from participation in a public contract for serious misconduct)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2017213EN.01000501.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie,
(Case C-387/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency - Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators - Article 48(3) - Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities - Article 51 - Possibility to supplement the tender - Article 45(2)(g) - Exclusion from participation in a public contract for serious misconduct))
(2017/C 213/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Esaprojekt sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Województwo Łódzkie

Third party: Konsultant Komputer sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 51 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from submitting to the contracting authority, in order to prove that it satisfies the conditions for participating in a public tender procedure, documents which were not included in its initial bid, such as a contract performed by another entity and the undertaking of the latter to place at the disposal of that operator the capacities and resources necessary for the performance of the contract concerned after the expiry of the time limit laid down for submitting tenders for a public contract.










2.


Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow an economic operator to rely on the capacities of another entity, within the meaning of Article 48(3) of that directive, by combining the knowledge and experience of two entities which, individually, do not have the capacities required for the performance of a particular contract, where the contracting authority considers that the contract concerned cannot be divided, in that it must be performed by a single operator, and that such exclusion of the possibility to rely on the experience of several economic operators is related and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract which must be performed by a single operator.










3.


Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow an economic operator, which has individually participated in an award procedure for a public contract, to rely on the experience of a group of undertakings of which it was a member, in connection with another public contract, if it has not actually and directly participated in the performance of the latter.










4.


Article 45(2)(g) of Directive 2004/18, which allows the exclusion of an economic operator from participation in a public contract, in particular if it is guilty of ‘serious misrepresentation’ for making false declarations when submitting the information requested by the contracting authority, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied where the operator concerned is guilty of a certain degree of negligence, that is to say negligence of a nature which may have a decisive effect on decisions concerning exclusion, selection or award of a public contract, irrespective of whether there is a finding of wilful misconduct on the part of that operator.










5.


Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it allows an economic operator to rely on experience derived from two or more contracts treated as a single contract, unless the contracting authority has excluded such a possibility pursuant to requirements which are related and proportionate to the subject matter and purpose of the public contract concerned.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.