CELEX: 62016CA0131
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-131/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Principles of awarding contracts — Article 10 — Principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Requirement for contracting authorities to request tenderers to amend or supplement their tender — Right of the contracting authority to retain the bank guarantee in the event of refusal — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 1(3) — Review procedures — Decision to award a public contract — Exclusion of a tenderer — Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings)

24.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 239/13
            
         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.
   (Case C-131/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Principles of awarding contracts - Article 10 - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers - Requirement for contracting authorities to request tenderers to amend or supplement their tender - Right of the contracting authority to retain the bank guarantee in the event of refusal - Directive 92/13/EEC - Article 1(3) - Review procedures - Decision to award a public contract - Exclusion of a tenderer - Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2017/C 239/17)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Referring court
   
   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik
   
      Defendant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.
   
      Intervener: Digital-Center sp. z o.o.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The principle of equal treatment of economic operators set out in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as precluding, in a public procurement procedure, the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to submit declarations or documents whose communication was required by the tender specification and which have not been submitted within the time limit given for the submission of tenders. On the other hand, that article does not preclude the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to clarify a tender or to correct an obvious clerical error in that tender, on condition, however, that such an invitation is sent to all tenderers in the same situation, that all tenderers are treated equally and fairly, and that that clarification or correction may not be equated with the submission of a new tender, which is for the referring court to determine.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which, in a public procurement procedure two tenders have been submitted and the contracting authority has adopted two simultaneous decisions rejecting the offer of one tenderer and awarding the contract to the other, the unsuccessful tenderer who brings an action against those two decisions must be able to request the exclusion of the tender of the successful tenderer, so that the concept of ‘a particular contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 92/13, as amended by Directive 2007/66, may, where appropriate, apply to the possible initiation of a new public procurement procedure.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.