CELEX: 62016CN0212
Language: en
Date: 2016-04-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-212/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 15 April 2016 — DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH

11.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 251/8
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 15 April 2016 — DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH
   (Case C-212/16)
   (2016/C 251/11)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Vergabekammer Südbayern
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG
   
      Defendant: BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH
   
      Joined parties: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it compatible with ensuring effective judicial protection in accordance with Article 1(3) and Article 2d(1)(a) of Directive 89/665/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) for a person who asserts the ineffectiveness of a contract concluded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union not to be eligible to use the review procedure, despite risk of harm, on the ground that the contracting authority, which, prior to awarding the contract, did not publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and did not follow a proper award procedure, conclusively specifies, by a statement during the review procedure, the service to be provided in such a way that the economic operator bringing proceedings could not provide it?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           Does it constitute a material contractual amendment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgment of 19 June 2008 in Case C-454/06 Pressetext) if a public undertaking hived off from another public undertaking concludes, in the context of transfer of part of a business within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC, (3) with the previous provider of occupational pension services to the hiving-off public undertaking, a new contract for the provision of occupational pensions which, for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the transferred employees to old-age and invalidity benefits under an occupational pension scheme, is in that respect identical with the original contract and the hived-off public undertaking is controlled by the hiving-off public undertaking as sole proprietor?
                        
                     If Question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative:
               
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           Is the use of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice pursuant to Article 31(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC with only one economic operator (namely, the previous service provider to the hiving-off public undertaking) permissible if the employees of the hiving-off public undertaking become, by way of transfer of a business, employees of the hived-off contracting authority and, in accordance with their contracts of employment transferred unaltered pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC in conjunction with an established in-house practice, would be entitled as against their new employer, under national employment law, to demand that the occupational pension services be provided by the previous service provider with which the prospective entitlements accrued prior to transfer of the business?
                        
                     If Question (b) must be answered in the negative:
               
                           (c)
                        
                        
                           May a contracting authority which, prior to awarding a contract, did not publish a contact notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and did not follow an award procedure in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC, exercise its right to specify performance — without infringing the procurement-law principles of competition, transparency and equal treatment — before following a proper award procedure, to the effect that, in specifying an implementation method for the occupational pension provision, it also specifies how the future service provider is to finance itself? May a contracting authority thus predetermine that only services of an unfunded pension scheme may be offered and that funded pension schemes are thus excluded, even though their obligations towards the insured employees may not differ pursuant to national employment law and by virtue of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC?
                        
                     If Question 2(c) must be answered in the affirmative:
               
                           (d)
                        
                        
                           Does this apply before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2014/24/EU even if that would have the effect that only one economic operator (namely, the previous service provider) was in a position to provide the service, or is a contracting authority which intends to use a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice with only one economic operator, pursuant to Article 31(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC, required, when specifying performance, even before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2014/24/EU, to ascertain that no reasonable alternative or substitute exists and that the absence of competition is not the result of an artificial narrowing down of the parameters of the procurement, as laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 32(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  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 (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).
   
      (2)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).
   
      (3)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).