19.4.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/15
Operative part of the judgment Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising the option available to it under that provision to refuse to grant an application for international protection on the ground that it is inadmissible because the applicant has already been granted refugee status by another Member State, where that applicant is the father of a child who is an unaccompanied minor who has been granted subsidiary protection in the first Member State, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the application of Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.
(1)
OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti (Case C-532/20) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/13/EEC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Article 1(1) and (3) — Access to review procedures — Article 2c — Time limits for applying for review — Calculation — Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate) (2022/C 165/17) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Alstom Transport SA Defendants: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti
Operative part of the judgment Article 1(1), fourth subparagraph, Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer for a contract may apply for review of a decision of the contracting entity declaring admissible, in the decision awarding that contract, the bid submitted by an unsuccessful tenderer may be calculated by using as a point of reference the date of receipt of that decision of the contracting authority by that successful tenderer, even if, at that date, that unsuccessful tenderer had not, or had not yet, applied for review of it.
On the other hand, if, during the notification or publication of that decision, a summary of the relevant reasons for it, such as the information concerning the procedures for evaluating that tender, was not, in accordance with that Article 2c, brought to the knowledge of that successful tenderer, that time limit must be calculated by using as a point of reference the communication of such a summary to the same successful tenderer.
(1)
OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.