CELEX: 62017CN0300
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-300/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

14.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/4
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
   (Case C-300/17)
   (2017/C 269/06)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Kúria
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Hochtief AG
   
      Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?