CELEX: 62015CN0006
Language: en
Date: 2015-01-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-6/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 12 January 2015  — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest

13.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 12 January 2015 — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-6/15)
   (2015/C 118/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Raad van State van België
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: TNS Dimarso NV
   
      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, both in isolation and in conjunction with the scope of the principles laid down by European law concerning equality and transparency in the field of public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contract is awarded to the tenderer who submits the most economically advantageous tender from the point of view of the contracting authority, the contracting authority is always required to establish in advance, and indicate in the contract notice or contract documents, the method of assessment or the weighting rules, irrespective of their scope, predictability or commonness, in the light of which the tenders will be assessed in accordance with the award criteria or subcriteria,
            
         
               2.
            
            
               or, if no such general obligation exists, that there are circumstances, such as, inter alia, the scope, unpredictability or uncommonness of these weighting rules, in which this obligation does apply?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.