CELEX: E2013J0024
Language: en
Date: 2014-08-29 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 29 August 2014 in Case E-24/13 — Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of transparency — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

19.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 92/32
            
         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 August 2014
   in Case E-24/13
   Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger
   (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of transparency — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   (2015/C 92/06)
   In Case E-24/13, Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and the obligation of transparency derived therefrom in the context of a procedure for awarding a casino concession, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   
               1.
            
            
               In the absence of specific provisions, national authorities remain bound by fundamental rules of EEA law when awarding service concessions. This does not preclude the national authority from attaching relative weighting to the award criteria but there remains a duty to comply with the obligation of transparency. This obligation entails that the relative weighting cannot alter the original award criteria, be of a nature that could have significantly affected the preparation of tenders or be likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The obligation of transparency does not necessarily require the national authorities to terminate a contract or the national courts to set aside an award decision in every case of breach of that obligation in connection with the award of a service concession. However, the national court must consider, when assessing in the circumstances of the case at hand the available remedies to ensure that the effects contrary to Articles 31 and 36 EEA do not subsist, that the public interest objective of good administration is adequately reflected in the award of concessions, so that awards can be made in a way that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In the absence of EEA rules on remedies it is for the domestic legal system to regulate the legal procedures for safeguarding the rights which individuals derive from that obligation in such a way that those procedures are no less favourable than similar domestic procedures and do not make the exercise of those rights practically impossible or excessively difficult.