CELEX: 62019CN0109
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-109/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

27.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/12
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
      (Case C-109/19)
      (2019/C 182/15)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Referring court
      
      Consiglio di Stato
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus
      
         Defendants: Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
      
         Question referred
      
      Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (Public Procurement Code), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure [whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender], even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?