Idi Srl v Arcadis - Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo.
Date: 2019-03-28
28


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law of the Court, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it, which requires the national court to define the factual and legal context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, to explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based (judgments of 21 September 2016, Etablissements Fr. Colruyt, C‑221/15, EU:C:2016:704, paragraph 14, and of 31 May 2018, Zheng, C‑190/17, EU:C:2018:357, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
35


According to settled case-law, as regards public contracts falling within the scope of Directive 2004/18, Article 45(2) thereof leaves the application of the seven grounds for excluding candidates from participation in a contract, relating to their professional honesty, solvency and reliability, to the determination of the Member States, as evidenced by the phrase ‘may be excluded from participation in a contract’, which appears at the beginning of that provision (judgment of 14 December 2016, Connexxion Taxi Services, C‑171/15, EU:C:2016:948, paragraph 28).
37


Under Article 45(2), second subparagraph, of that directive, the Member States are to specify, in accordance with their national law and having regard for EU law, the implementing conditions for that paragraph. It follows that the concepts in Article 45(2), first paragraph, including the expression ‘entered into an arrangement with creditors’ may be specified and explained in national law, provided that that is done with regard for EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 May 2017, Esaprojekt, C‑387/14, EU:C:2017:338, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).
45


Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18 does not provide for uniform application at EU level of the grounds of exclusion it mentions, since the Member States may choose not to apply those grounds of exclusion at all or to incorporate them into national law with varying degrees of rigour according to legal, economic or social considerations prevailing at national level. In that context, Member States have the power to make the criteria laid down in Article 45(2) less onerous or more flexible (judgment of 14 December 2016, Connexxion Taxi Services, C‑171/15, EU:C:2016:948, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
46


In that case, the Member State concerned is entitled to determine the conditions under which the optional grounds for exclusion do not apply (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 December 2017, Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E Mantovani and Guerrato, C‑178/16, EU:C:2017:1000, paragraph 41).