CELEX: 62017CA0413
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-413/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 42 – Award – Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority – Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)

7.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 4/5
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB
      (Case C-413/17) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 42 - Award - Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority - Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)
      (2019/C 4/06)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB
      
         In the presence of: Kauno Dainavos poliklinika VšĮ
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Articles 18 and 42 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not imposing on the contracting authority, in establishing technical specifications in a procurement procedure concerning the acquisition of medical supplies, by principle, prioritising either the importance of the individual characteristics of the medical supplies or the importance of the result of their functioning, but requiring that the technical specifications, as a whole, comply with the principles of equality of treatment and proportionality. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the dispute before it, the technical specifications at issue comply with those requirements.
      
         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.