CELEX: 62017CA0300
Language: en
Date: 2018-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-300/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EC — Action for damages — Article 2(6) — National rules making the admissibility of any action for damages subject to a prior and definitive determination of the illegality of the decision of the contracting authority giving rise to the damage alleged — Actions for annulment — Prior action before an arbitration committee — Judicial review of arbitral decisions — National rules excluding pleas not raised before the arbitration committee — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

1.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 352/11
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
      (Case C-300/17) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EC - Action for damages - Article 2(6) - National rules making the admissibility of any action for damages subject to a prior and definitive determination of the illegality of the decision of the contracting authority giving rise to the damage alleged - Actions for annulment - Prior action before an arbitration committee - Judicial review of arbitral decisions - National rules excluding pleas not raised before the arbitration committee - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))
      (2018/C 352/14)
      Language of the case: Hungarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Kúria
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Hochtief AG
      
         Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 2(6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the possibility of asserting a claim under civil law in the event of an infringement of the rules governing public procurement and the award of public contracts subject to the condition that the infringement be definitively established by an arbitration committee or, in the context of judicial review of an decision of that arbitration committee, by a court.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  European Union law, and in particular Article 1(1) and (3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action for damages, it does not preclude a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the judicial review of arbitral decisions issued by an arbitration committee responsible at first instance for the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities in public procurement procedures to examine only the pleas raised before that committee.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.