CELEX: C2003/184/14
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review procedures are accessible)

C 184/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               2.8.2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            procedures provided for by the abovementioned directive in order
                                                                                    to challenge the validity of the decision of the contracting
                                                                                    authority not to consider his tender offer as the best bid, on
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                         the ground that that tender was bound to have been eliminated
                                                                                    beforehand by the contracting authority for other reasons and
                                                                                    that, as a result, he was not or did not risk being harmed by
                            of 19 June 2003                                         the infringement he alleges. In the context of the review
                                                                                    procedure to which the aforementioned tenderer is entitled, the
                                                                                    tenderer must be allowed to challenge the validity of the ground
in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           for exclusion on the basis of which the review body intends to
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG                               conclude that he was not or did not risk being harmed by the
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener                                     decision the validity of which he challenges.
                 Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (1)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review
                       procedures are accessible)
                             (2003/C 184/14)
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                         (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                                         of 12 June 2003
In Case C-249/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 in Case C-275/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary                    the House of Lords): Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                        of Customs and Excise (1)
Werner Hackermüller and BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft
mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH — on
the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/               (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac-
EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws,                     tions — Letting of immovable property — Meaning —
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the appli-              Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises)
cation of review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                                              (2003/C 184/15)
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                                          (Language of the case: English)
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December             In Case C-275/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and admin-           EC by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the
      istrative provisions relating to the application of review proce-       proceedings pending before that court between Sinclair Collis
      dures to the award of public supply and public works contracts,         Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the inter-
      as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992               pretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of             388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      public service contracts, does not preclude that the review             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
      procedures provided for by that directive should be accessible to       system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
      a person seeking the award of a specific public contract only           1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      where he risks being harmed by the infringement alleged by              C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
      him.                                                                    as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                              S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
2.    Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in
      50, precludes a tenderer being refused access to the review             which it has ruled: