Case C-271/25, Autovici: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 April 2025 – AUTOVICI UAB v CPO LT Viešoji įstaiga
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, confidentiality, equal treatment, judicial review, principle of proportionality, public procurement, right to an effective remedy, right to justice, tendering, threat to national security








C_202504265EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4265


11.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 April 2025 – ‘AUTOVICI’ UAB v ‘CPO LT’ Viešoji įstaiga


(Case C-271/25, Autovici)

(C/2025/4265)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance, appellant and appellant on a point of law:
            ‘AUTOVICI’ UAB

Defendant at first instance and respondent in the appeal on a point of law:
            ‘CPO LT’ Viešoji įstaiga

Intervening parties: Viešųjų pirkimų tarnyba, Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba, Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės saugumo departamentas

Questions referred







1.


Must the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality referred to in Article 18 of [Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC], and Articles 56 and 57 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, under which an application or a tender submitted by a supplier is rejected where the contracting authority has been informed by the competent authorities that the interests of the supplier (or of persons associated with the supplier) may pose a threat to national security, is to be classified as a ground for exclusion of suppliers for the purposes of applying Article 57 of that directive or as an independent ground, linked to national security, for exclusion (prohibition) from participating in the public procurement procedure? In addition, are the requirements laid down in Article 57 of Directive 2014/24, including Article 57(7) thereof, such as the assessment of the proportionality of excluding suppliers, the request for remedial (‘self-cleaning’) measures or the limitation of the period of exclusion, applicable directly or by analogy to such a national provision?










2.


Irrespective of the answer to the first question, must the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2014/24, and Articles 56 and 57 thereof, be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that laid down in point 5 of Article 45(21) of the [Lietuvos Respublikos viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on public procurement; ‘the Law on public procurement’)], which automatically excludes a supplier from a procurement procedure, without the contracting authority deciding independently whether the interests of the supplier (or of persons associated with the supplier) may pose a threat to national security in the context of the specific procurement, and without assessing the proportionality of the measure adopted (rejection of the application or tender) in the specific case?










3.


Must Article 55(3) of Directive 2014/24, in particular the provision in that paragraph concerning the clause on law enforcement or the public interest, and the provisions in the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) and in Article 1(3) of [Council Directive 89/665/EEC (2) 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], which provide for effective review procedures, read in conjunction with the principle of good administration under EU law and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], be interpreted as meaning that, when the contracting authority rejects an application or a tender on the basis of point 5 of Article 45(21) of the Law on public procurement, it must provide an exhaustive statement of reasons for its decision or, with a view to reconciling the principle of effective judicial protection and the principle of the protection of data relating to national security, it may provide only part of those data (a summary, extracts, the legal basis alone, and so on)? If the latter alternative were to be accepted, what criteria should be used to determine the scope of the data to be provided to the supplier, so that, without undermining the secrecy of the data relating to national security, the implementation of the principle of effective judicial protection of the infringed rights of the supplier is ensured?










4.


Must the objective of Directive 89/665, the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) thereof and Article 1(3) thereof, read in conjunction with the principles of effective judicial protection and of a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a court hearing a dispute concerning the legality of a contracting authority’s decision to reject a supplier’s application is prohibited from limiting its judicial review in such a way that, on account of the specific nature and content of the data on which the contested decision of the contracting authority is based, related to threats to national security, the content of those data would not be assessed and the procedural decision of the court does not rule on whether the data obtained from the competent authorities constituted a sufficient and justified ground for rejecting the application or tender?




If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, are the principles of effective judicial protection and of a fair trial enshrined in the [fourth] subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, in Article 1(3) thereof and in Article 47 of the Charter observed if, in the event that a contracting authority decides to reject a supplier’s application or tender on the basis of point 5 of Article 45(21) of the Law on public procurement without relying on classified data, such data would be accessible to, and assessed by, only a court that is hearing a dispute concerning the lawfulness of such a decision of the contracting authority and that has the right to deal with classified information?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  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 (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4265/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)