CELEX: C2006/326/86
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-454/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2006 — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/41
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2006 — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability
   (Case C-454/06)
   (2006/C 326/86)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesvergabeamt
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH
   
      Respondents: 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which a contracting authority intends to obtain services in the future from a service provider established as a limited liability company where those services were previously supplied by a different service provider who is the sole shareholder in the future service provider and has control of the future service provider? In such a case is it legally relevant that the contracting authority has no guarantee that throughout the entire period of the original contract the shares in the future service provider will not be disposed of in whole or in part to third parties and moreover has no guarantee that the membership of the original service provider, which is in the form of a co-operative society, will remain unchanged throughout the entire contract period?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which, during the period of validity of a contract concluded for an indefinite period with certain service providers for the joint provision of services, a contracting authority agrees with those service providers amendments to the charges for specified services under the contract and reformulates an index-linking clause, where these amendments result in different charges and are made upon the changeover to the euro?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which, during the period of validity of a contract concluded for an indefinite period with certain service providers for the joint provision of services, a contracting authority agrees with those service providers to amend the contract, first, renewing for a period of three years a waiver of the right to terminate the contract by notice, the waiver no longer being in force at the time of the amendment, and second, also laying down a higher rebate than before for certain volume-related charges within a specified area of supply?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               
                  If the answer to any of the first three questions is that there is an award:
               Is Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC, or are any other provisions of Community law, such as, in particular, the principle of transparency, to be interpreted as permitting a contracting authority to obtain services by awarding a single contract in a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, where parts of the services are covered by exclusive rights as referred to in Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC? Or do the principle of transparency or any other provisions of Community law require in the case of an award of mostly non-priority services that a contract notice is none the less published prior to the contract award, to enable undertakings in the sectors concerned to assess whether services are in fact being awarded that are subject to an exclusive right? Or do the provisions of Community law relating to the award of public contracts require that in such a case services can only be awarded in separate tender procedures, according to whether they are or are not subject to exclusive rights, in order to allow at least competitive tendering as to part?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               
                  If the answer to the fourth question is to the effect that a contracting authority may award services which are not subject to exclusive rights in a single procurement procedure together with services which are subject to an exclusive right:
               Can an undertaking which does not have any right to deal with data that is subject to an exclusive right possessed by an undertaking which has a dominant position in the market establish that in that respect it has the capacity, for the purposes of procurement law, to provide a comprehensive service to a contracting authority, by relying on Article 82 EC and an obligation derived from that provision on the market-dominant undertaking which has the power of disposal over the data and is established in a Member State to provide the data on reasonable conditions?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the answer to the first, second and third questions is to the effect that the partial contract transfer in 2000 and/or one or both of the contract amendments referred to constituted new awards; and furthermore should the fourth question be answered to the effect that either when awarding a contract for services not subject to exclusive rights by means of a separate award procedure, or when awarding a combined contract (in the present case for press releases, the basic service and rights to use APADok), a contracting authority should have first published a contract notice to ensure that the intended contract award was transparent and capable of being reviewed:
               Is ‘harmed’ in Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665/EEC (2) and in Article 2(1)(c) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking in a case such as the present one is harmed, within the meaning of those provisions of Directive 89/665/EEC, simply where he has been deprived of the opportunity to participate in a procurement procedure because the contracting authority did not, prior to making the award, publish a contract notice, on the basis of which the undertaking could have tendered for the contract to be awarded, could have submitted an offer or could have had the claim that exclusive rights were involved reviewed by the competent procurement review body?
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Are the Community law principle of equivalence and the Community law requirement for effective legal protection, or the principle of effectiveness, to be interpreted, having regard to any other relevant provisions of Community law, as conferring an individual and unconditional right on an undertaking against a Member State such that it has at least six months from the time when it could have known that a contract award infringed procurement law to bring legal proceedings before the competent national authority to seek damages following the contract award on account of an infringement of Community procurement law, while it must be allowed additional time for periods when it could not make such a claim owing to the absence of a statutory basis in national law, in circumstances where under national law claims for damages based on infringements of national law are normally subject to a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge of the wrongdoer and of the damage and, in the absence of legal protection in a particular area of law, the limitation period does not (continue to) run?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.