CELEX: C2000/102/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-9/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 31 December 1999 in the proceedings brought by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon Kansanterveystyön Kuntayhtymän Hallitus

C 102/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                          advantageous tender, take into account, in addition to the
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 17 December                        tender price and the quality and environment programme
1999 in the case of Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin                           of the transport operator and various other characteristics
              Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliikenne                                 of the bus fleet, the low nitric oxide emissions and
                                                                             low noise level of the bus fleet offered by a tendering
                                                                             undertaking, in a manner announced beforehand in the
                        (Case C-513/99)                                      tender notice, such that if the nitric oxide emissions or
                                                                             noise level of the individual buses are below a certain level,
                                                                             extra points for the fleet may be taken into account in the
                        (2000/C 102/15)                                      comparison?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  3. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, an
European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-                      answer is requested to the following question also: Are the
to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of                        European Community provisions on public procurement
17 December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry                   to be interpreted as meaning that the awarding of extra
on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 points for the above-mentioned characteristics relating to
Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliiken-                 nitric oxide emissions and noise level of the fleet is,
ne on the following questions:                                               however, not permitted if it is known beforehand that the
                                                                             department operating bus transport belonging to the city
                                                                             which is the contracting entity is able to offer a bus
1. Are the provisions on the scope of Council Directive                      fleet possessing the above characteristics, which in the
    93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement                   circumstances only a few undertakings in the sector are
    procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,                   otherwise able to offer?
    transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199,
    p. 84), in particular Article 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4), to be
    interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a
    procedure of a city which is a contracting entity for the
    award of a contract concerning the operation of bus
    transport within the city, if
    — the city is responsible for the planning, development,
        implementation and other arrangement and super-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
        vision of public transport in its area,                         Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 31 December
                                                                        1999 in the proceedings brought by Palin Granit Oy and
    — for the above functions the city has a public transport           Vehmassalon Kansanterveystyön Kuntayhtymän Hallitus
        committee and a city transport department subordinate
        thereto,
                                                                                                     (Case C-9/00)
    — within the city transport department there is a planning
                                                                                                   (2000/C 102/16)
        unit which acts as an ordering unit which prepares
        proposals for the public transport committee on which
        routes should be put out to tender and what level of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        quality of services should be required, and                     European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-
                                                                        to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 31
    — within the city transport department there are pro-               December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
        duction units, economically distinct from the rest of           13 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
        the transport department, including a unit which                brought by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon Kansanterveys-
        provides bus transport services and takes part in tender        työn Kuntayhtymän Hallitus on the following questions:
        procedures relating thereto?
                                                                        Is leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying to be regarded
2. Are the European Community provisions on public pro-                 as waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
    curement, in particular Article 36(1) of Council Directive          75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
    92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2), having
    of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ         regard to points (a) to (d) below?
    1992 L 209, p. 1) or the equivalent Article 34(1) of
    Directive 93/38/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that,             (a) What relevance, in deciding the above question, does it
    when organising a tender procedure concerning the oper-                  have that the leftover stone is stored on a site adjoining
    ation of bus transport within the city, a city which is a                the place of quarrying to await subsequent use? Is it
    contracting entity may, among the criteria for awarding                  relevant generally whether it is stored on the quarrying
    the contract on the basis of the economically most                       site, a site next to it or further away?
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 102/11
(b) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    same as regards its composition as the basic rock from             Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case
    which it has been quarried, and that it does not change its        of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
    composition regardless of how long it is kept or how it is                               the County of Mayo
    kept?
(c) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is
    harmless to human health and the environment? To what
    extent generally is importance to be attached to its possible                               (Case C-19/00)
    effect on health and the environment in assessing whether
    it is waste?
(d) What relevance does it have that the intention is to transfer                              (2000/C 102/18)
    the leftover stone in whole or in part away from the
    storage site for recovery, for example for landfill or
    breakwaters, and that it could be used as such without
    processing or similar measures? To what extent in this
    connection should attention be paid to how definite plans          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the holder of the leftover stone has for such recovery and         European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    to how soon after the leftover stone has been deposited on         Dublin, of 30 July 1999, which was received at the Court
    the storage site the recovery takes place?                         Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
                                                                       the County of Mayo, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                       In a situation where an authority is awarding a contract
                                                                       pursuant to the provisions of the second indent of Article 29.1
                                                                       of Council Directive (71/305/EEC) (1), Chapter 2 of 26 July
                                                                       1971 as applied in the national law of a Member State, and
                                                                       where the authority shall have specified the ‘Award criteria
                                                                       (other than price)’ as being that the contract would be awarded
                                                                       to ‘the competent contractor submitting a tender which is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège                    adjudged to be the most advantageous to the’ (awarding
juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial            authority) ‘in respect of cost and technical merit’ and where
board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that                 the three lowest tenders shall have been contractors of accepted
court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François                       competence and shall have submitted valid tenders of accepted
De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de                     technical merit, and where the tender prices of the three lowest
                      Watermael-Boitsfort                              tenderers shall not have diverged greatly, is the awarding
                                                                       authority obliged to award the contract to the contractor who
                         (Case C-17/00)                                shall have tendered the lowest price or is the awarding
                                                                       authority entitled to award the contract to the contractor with
                                                                       the second lowest price on the basis of the professional report
                        (2000/C 102/17)                                of its consulting engineer that the ultimate cost of the contract
                                                                       to the awarding authority is likely to be less if the contract is
                                                                       awarded to the contractor who tendered the second lowest
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 price than it would be if the contract were awarded to the
European Communities by an order of the Collège juridiction-           contractor who tendered the lowest price?
nel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale of 9 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of François De Coster v
Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort
on the following question:
                                                                       (1) Concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts (OJ L 185 of 16.8.1971, p. 5) (SE SER1
‘Are Articles 1 to 3 of the tax regulation on satellite dishes             71(II) p. 682).
adopted in a vote by the municipal council of Watermael-Boits-
fort sitting in public on 24 June 1997 introducing a tax on
satellite dishes compatible with Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957?’