CELEX: C2000/149/42
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-92/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekontrollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 February 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund

C 149/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-                  the case of Roquette Frères SA v Directeur-Général de la
trollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 Februa-           Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des
ry 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Kranken-                 Fraudes on the following questions:
haustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt
         Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund                         (1) Having regard to the fundamental rights recognised by the
                                                                           Community legal order and to Article 8 of the European
                          (Case C-92/00)                                   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, must
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities in Hoechst of 21 September 1989 be inter-
                         (2000/C 149/42)                                   preted to mean that the national court, which has the
                                                                           power in national law to order entry into premises and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     seizures by agents of the Administration in the area of
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat                  competition, cannot refuse to grant the authorisation
(Public-Procurement Review Chamber) of 17 February 2000,                   requested when it considers that the information or
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2000, for a                     evidence put before it and alleged to give rise to a
preliminary ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure                   suspicion of anti-competitive practices on the part of the
Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH v Magistrat der Stadt                    undertakings mentioned in the Commission’s decision to
Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund (Public Authority                    investigate are not sufficient to warrant such a measure or
of the City of Vienna — Vienna Associated Hospitals) on the                when, as in the present case, no information or evidence
following questions:                                                       has been put before it?
1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) (directive         (2) In the event that the Court of Justice refuses to recognise
    on remedies) require the decision of a contracting authority           that the Commission is required to put before the national
    to cancel the procedure for the award of a contract for                court the evidence or information it has which gives rise
    services to be reviewable in review proceedings leading, if            to a suspicion of anti-competitive practices, having regard
    appropriate, to its being set aside?                                   to the above fundamental rights, is that court none the less
                                                                           empowered to refuse the application for entry to premises
2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, is there any                   and seizure of evidence if it considers that the Commission
    provision of Directive 89/665 or of Directive 92/50/EEC (2)            decision does not state sufficient reasons, as in the present
    which precludes a review limited to examination of the                 case, and does not allow it to ascertain in practice whether
    issue whether cancellation of the award procedure was                  the application before it is well-founded, thereby making
    arbitrary or a sham?                                                   it impossible for it to carry out the review required by its
                                                                           national constitutional law?
3. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, which is the
    relevant moment in time for assessing whether the decision
    of the contracting authority to cancel the award procedure
    is lawful?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                       Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 21 January 2000 in the
                                                                                case of O’Neill Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.
                                                                                                (Case C-95/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                                            (2000/C 149/44)
Cassation (French Court of Appeal) by judgment of that
court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Roquette Frères SA
v Directeur-Général de la Concurrence, de la Consomma-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion et de la Répression des Fraudes (Director-General for             European Communities by order of 21 January 2000 from
Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Elimination of                   the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
                              Fraud)                                   (Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of O’Neill
                                                                       Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o. on the following question:
                          (Case C-94/00)
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                         (2000/C 149/43)                               Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                       down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
sation of 7 March 2000, which was received at the Court                Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994), as amended by
Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                 Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (1) of 25 January 1999,