CELEX: C2000/102/18
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-19/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of the County of Mayo

8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 102/11
(b) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    same as regards its composition as the basic rock from             Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case
    which it has been quarried, and that it does not change its        of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
    composition regardless of how long it is kept or how it is                               the County of Mayo
    kept?
(c) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is
    harmless to human health and the environment? To what
    extent generally is importance to be attached to its possible                               (Case C-19/00)
    effect on health and the environment in assessing whether
    it is waste?
(d) What relevance does it have that the intention is to transfer                              (2000/C 102/18)
    the leftover stone in whole or in part away from the
    storage site for recovery, for example for landfill or
    breakwaters, and that it could be used as such without
    processing or similar measures? To what extent in this
    connection should attention be paid to how definite plans          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the holder of the leftover stone has for such recovery and         European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    to how soon after the leftover stone has been deposited on         Dublin, of 30 July 1999, which was received at the Court
    the storage site the recovery takes place?                         Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
                                                                       the County of Mayo, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                       In a situation where an authority is awarding a contract
                                                                       pursuant to the provisions of the second indent of Article 29.1
                                                                       of Council Directive (71/305/EEC) (1), Chapter 2 of 26 July
                                                                       1971 as applied in the national law of a Member State, and
                                                                       where the authority shall have specified the ‘Award criteria
                                                                       (other than price)’ as being that the contract would be awarded
                                                                       to ‘the competent contractor submitting a tender which is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège                    adjudged to be the most advantageous to the’ (awarding
juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial            authority) ‘in respect of cost and technical merit’ and where
board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that                 the three lowest tenders shall have been contractors of accepted
court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François                       competence and shall have submitted valid tenders of accepted
De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de                     technical merit, and where the tender prices of the three lowest
                      Watermael-Boitsfort                              tenderers shall not have diverged greatly, is the awarding
                                                                       authority obliged to award the contract to the contractor who
                         (Case C-17/00)                                shall have tendered the lowest price or is the awarding
                                                                       authority entitled to award the contract to the contractor with
                                                                       the second lowest price on the basis of the professional report
                        (2000/C 102/17)                                of its consulting engineer that the ultimate cost of the contract
                                                                       to the awarding authority is likely to be less if the contract is
                                                                       awarded to the contractor who tendered the second lowest
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 price than it would be if the contract were awarded to the
European Communities by an order of the Collège juridiction-           contractor who tendered the lowest price?
nel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale of 9 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of François De Coster v
Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort
on the following question:
                                                                       (1) Concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts (OJ L 185 of 16.8.1971, p. 5) (SE SER1
‘Are Articles 1 to 3 of the tax regulation on satellite dishes             71(II) p. 682).
adopted in a vote by the municipal council of Watermael-Boits-
fort sitting in public on 24 June 1997 introducing a tax on
satellite dishes compatible with Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957?’