Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority.
Date: 2010-01-28
26. The objective of Directive 89/665 is to guarantee the existence of effective remedies for infringements of Community law in the field of pub lic procurement or of the national rules implementing that law, so as to ensure the effective application of the directives on the coordination of public procurement procedures. However, Directive 89/665 contains no provision specifically covering time-limits for the applications for review which it seeks to establish. It is therefore for the internal legal order of each Member State to establish such time-limits (Case C‑470/99 Universale-Bau and Others [2002] ECR I‑11617, paragraph 71).
27. The detailed procedural rules governing the remedies intended to protect rights conferred by Community law on candidates and tenderers harmed by decisions of contracting authorities must not compromise the effectiveness of Directive 89/665 ( Universale-Bau and Others , paragraph 72).
28. It is for that reason appropriate to determine whether, in the light of the purpose of Directive 89/665, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not adversely affect rights conferred on individuals by Community law ( Universale-Bau and Others , paragraph 73).
29. In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 requires Member States to guarantee that unlawful decisions of contracting authorities can be subjected to effective review which is as swift as possible ( Universale-Bau and Others , paragraph 74).
32. It follows that the objective laid down in Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 of guaranteeing effective procedures for review of infringements of the provisions applicable in the field of public procurement can be realised only if the periods laid down for bringing such proceedings start to run only from the date on which the claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged infringement of those provisions (see, to that effect, Universale-Bau and Others , paragraph 78).
38. As observed in paragraph 29 of this judgment, Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 requires Member States to guarantee that decisions of contracting authorities can be subjected to effective review which is as swift as possible. In order to attain the objective of rapidity pursued by that directive, Member States may impose limitation periods for actions in order to require traders to challenge promptly preliminary measures or interim decisions taken in public procurement procedures (see, to that effect, Universale-Bau and Others , paragraphs 75 to 79; Case C‑230/02 Grossmann Air Service  [2004] ECR I‑1829, paragraphs 30 and 36 to 39; and Case C‑241/06 Lämmerzahl [2007] ECR I‑8415, paragraphs 50 and 51).
39. The objective of rapidity pursued by Directive 89/665 must be achieved in national law in compliance with the requirements of legal certainty. To that end, Member States have an obligation to establish a system of limitation periods that is sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable to enable individuals to ascertain their rights and obligations (see, to that effect, Case C‑361/88 Commission  v Germany  [1991] ECR I‑2567, paragraph 24, and Case C‑221/94 Commission  v Luxembourg  [1996] ECR I‑5669, paragraph 22).
40. Furthermore, the objective of rapidity pursued by Directive 89/665 does not permit Member States to disregard the principle of effectiveness, under which the detailed methods for the application of national limitation periods must not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of any rights which the person concerned derives from Community law, a principle which underlies the objective of effective review proceedings laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive.
45. In the case of national provisions transposing a directive, national courts are bound to interpret national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by that directive (see Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann  [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26, and Joined Cases C‑397/01 to C‑403/01 Pfeiffer and Others  [2004] ECR I‑8835, paragraph 113).
46. In the present case, it is for the national court, as far as is at all possible, to interpret the domestic provisions establishing the limitation period in a manner which accords with the objective of Directive 89/665 (see, to that effect, Case C‑327/00 Santex  [2003] ECR I‑1877, paragraph 63, and Lämmerzahl , paragraph 62).
49. In any event, if the national provisions do not lend themselves to an interpretation which accords with Directive 89/665, the national court must refrain from applying those provisions, in order to apply Community law fully and to protect the rights conferred thereby on individuals (see, to that effect, Santex , paragraph 64, and Lämmerzahl , paragraph 63).