CELEX: C2002/031/03
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-410/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG)

C 31/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom              GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweig-
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Italian Republic (Agents:        hofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter,
U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and Commission of the                 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurge-
European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van Rijn)              sellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium, against Autobahnen-
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                   und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG) on the
No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures                 following questions:
in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) — the Court,             Question 1
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and
F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,             Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                  contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
which it:                                                                procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
                                                                         submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
                                                                         ment procedure?
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                                                                         In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
2.    Orders the Netherlands Antilles to pay the costs.
                                                                         Question 2
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the
                                                                         Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                         that an undertaking only has or had an interest in a particular
      costs.
                                                                         public contract if — in addition to its participating in the
                                                                         public procurement procedure — it takes or took all steps
                                                                         available to it under national law to prevent the contract from
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                being awarded to another bidder and so to secure the award
                                                                         of the contract to itself?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PART-
NER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleis-
tungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für                Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission
Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwie-
ser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang                                        (Case C-420/01)
Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consor-
tium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finan-
                   zierungs-AG (ASFINAG)                                                           (2002/C 31/04)
                         (Case C-410/01)
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                          (2002/C 31/03)                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 October
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Hendrik Van Lier and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                         as Agents.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 October 2001 by
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austrian Federal Procurement                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Office, Vienna), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the review                  —     Declare that, by applying rules to drinks manufactured
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER,                           and marketed in other Member States prohibiting the
Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen,                         marketing in Italy of energy drinks containing caffeine in
3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen                     excess of a certain limit, without showing how such a