C 207/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
23.5.2022
Question referred Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national case-law by virtue of which a worker who was unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in his or her employment, in accordance with national law, following the annulment of the dismissal by a decision of a court, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period between the date of the dismissal and that of the reinstatement in his or her employment on the ground that, during that period, that worker did not actually carry out work for the employer, also in cases when, according to national legislation, the worker who has been unlawfully dismissed and who has without undue delay informed his or her employer in writing that he or she insists on being employed, is entitled to wage or salary compensation in the amount of average earnings from the date when he or she informed the employer that he or she insists on the continuation of his or her employment until such time as the employer allows him or her to carry on in his or her work or his or her employment relationship is validly terminated?
(1)
OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 2 February 2022 — Infraestruturas de Portugal, S.A., Futrifer Indústrias Ferroviárias, S.A. v Toscca Equipamentos de Madeira, Lda.
(Case C-66/22) (2022/C 207/17) Language of the case: Portuguese Referring court Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
Parties to the main proceedings Appellants: Infraestruturas de Portugal, S.A., Futrifer Indústrias Ferroviárias, S.A.
Defendant: Toscca Equipamentos de Madeira, Lda.
Questions referred 1.
Does the ground for exclusion provided for in Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) constitute a matter reserved for decision by the contracting authority? 2.
May the national legislature fully replace the decision that should be taken by the contracting authority under Article 57 (4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU with a generic decision (with the effects of a decision) from its national competition authority to impose an ancillary penalty consisting of prohibition from participating in public procurement procedures for a certain period, adopted in the context of the imposition of a fine for infringement of competition rules? 3.
Should the contracting authority’s decision concerning the ‘reliability’ of the economic operator in view of its compliance (or non-compliance) with the rules of competition law, beyond the scope of the specific tendering procedure, be interpreted as requiring an assessment based on the relative suitability of that economic operator, which constitutes a concrete expression of the right to good administration under Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? 4.
May the solution adopted in Portuguese law under Article 55(1)(f) of the CCP, (2) whereby the exclusion of an economic operator from a tendering procedure on grounds of infringement of competition rules unrelated to that specific procurement procedure is subject to a decision from the competition authority in the context of an application of an ancillary penalty consisting of a prohibition from tendering, a procedure in which it is the competition authority itself that assesses the relevance of the corrective measures taken, be regarded as consistent with EU law, specifically, Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU?