C 15/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
16.1.2023
— must, where full access to information is refused, grant that tenderer access to the essential content of that information, so that observance of the right to an effective remedy is ensured.
3.
Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24, read in the light of Article 67(4) of that directive,
must be interpreted as not precluding the ‘project development design’, planned to be carried out under the public contract in question and the ‘description of the manner of performance of the contract’ for that contract from being included among the criteria for the award of the contract, provided that those criteria are accompanied by indications enabling the contracting authority to make a specific and objective assessment of the tenders submitted.
4.
Article 1(1) and (3) of 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, 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, in the event of a finding, when dealing with an action brought against a decision awarding a public contract, of an obligation on the part of the contracting authority to disclose to the applicant information which was wrongly treated as confidential and of a breach of the right to an effective remedy on account of the failure to disclose that information, that finding does not necessarily have to lead to the adoption, by that contracting authority, of a new contract award decision, provided that the national procedural law permits the court hearing the case to adopt, during the proceedings, measures which restore observance of the right to an effective remedy or allow it to find that the applicant may bring a new action against the award decision that has already been made.
The time limit for bringing such an action must not start to run until the applicant has access to all the information which had been wrongly classified as confidential.
(1)
OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Harman International Industries Inc. v AB SA (Case C-175/21) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Intellectual property — EU trade mark — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 15 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Placing on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) — Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark — Place of first marketing of products by the proprietor of the trade mark or with its consent — Proof — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial protection — Operative part of judicial decisions not identifying the products covered — Difficulties in implementation — Restricted scope of action before the competent court for enforcement — Fair trial — Rights of the defence — Principle of the equality of arms) (2023/C 15/11) Language of the case: Polish Referring court Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie