CELEX: 62017CN0124
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-124/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH

6.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/8
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH
   (Case C-124/17)
   (2017/C 178/09)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Vergabekammer Südbayern
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH
   
      Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is legislation of a Member State that makes successful voluntary remedial measures (Selbstreinigung) by an economic operator subject to the condition that it clarifies the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct and the damage caused by it in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authorities, but also with the contracting authority, compatible with the provisions of Article 80 of Directive 2014/25/EU (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (2)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If Question (a) is answered in the negative: Must the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted, in that context, as meaning that the relevant economic operator is, for there to be successful voluntary remedial measures, in any event required to clarify the facts for the contracting authority to such an extent that the latter may assess whether the measures taken (technical, organisational and personnel measures and compensation for damage) are appropriate and sufficient?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               For the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the maximum period or time limit of exclusion is, pursuant to Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24/EU, three years from the date of the relevant event. Is the fulfilment of the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU to be understood as the relevant event or is the relevant date that on which the contracting entity has certain and reliable knowledge of the existence of the ground for exclusion?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Accordingly, for the fulfilment of the conditions for exclusion under Article [57](4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU through participation of an economic operator in a cartel, is the relevant event within the meaning of Article [57](7) of Directive 2014/24/EU the termination of participation in the cartel or the contracting entity’s acquisition of certain and reliable knowledge of the participation in the cartel?
            
         
      (1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).
   
      (2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).