natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 25. september 2001 har Bundesvergabeamt forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 19, stk. 1 og 2, og artikel 30, stk. 1 og 2, i Rådets direktiv 93/37/EØF af 14. juni 1993.
As to the right to property, the fact that the managing body of an airport is nol authorised to collect an access fee does not mean, contrary to the Flughafen's assertions, that that body is deprived of the possibility of profiting from the economic services that it provides on the groundhandling market to which it must grant access.
For så vidt angik udførelsen af vejbelægningen uden for motorvejsbroerne var det i udbuddet, under overskriften »Officielt projekt« og uden nærmere angivelse af mindstekravene, præciseret, at der skulle etableres et tolags betondække af høj betonkvalitet.
'Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, in particular Article 16(3) thereof, precludes the managing body of an airport from making access to the groundhandling market in the airport subject to payment by a supplier of groundhandling services or selfhandler of an access fee as consideration for the grant of a commercial opportunity, in addition to the fee payable by that supplier or selfhandler for the use of the airport installations.
Dette bud var det laveste af samtlige afgivne bud.
He proposed that the Court should answer as follows:
Ifølge den tekniske kontrolrapport var den udførelse af vejfornyelsen i beton, som var beskrevet i udbudsbetingelserne, at foretrække, ikke mindst under hensyntagen til levetiden (30 år mod en levetid for asfaltdækket på 20 år) og under hensyntagen til denne konstruktionsmådes modstandsdygtighed over for deformering.
On the other hand, the managing body of an airport is entitled to collect a fee for the use of airport installations, the amount of which is to be determined in accordance with the criteria laid down under Article 16(3) of the said Directive and having regard to the interest of the managing body of the airport in making a profit.'
Kan den betingelse, som er fastsat i nationale retsforskrifter for, at et »alternativt bud« — i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i artikel 19, stk. 1, i direktiv 93/37/EØF — kan antages, og hvorefter det alternative bud skal »sikre levering af en ydelse, som er ligeværdig med hensyn til kvaliteten«, lovligt anses for et »mindstekrav«, der er fastsat og angivet af den ordregivende myndighed i overensstemmelse med artikel 19, stk. 1 og 2, i direktiv 93/37/EØF, såfremt udbudsbetingelserne alene henviser til den nationale retsforskrift og ikke nærmere fastlægger de konkrete kriterier for sammenligning, på grundlag af hvilke »ligeværdigheden« kan efterprøves?
By order of 25 September 2001 the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal Procurement Office) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 and Article 30(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993.
Såfremt spørgsmål 3 besvares bekræftende: Kan en ordregivende myndighed gennemføre en udbudsprocedure som den, der er nærmere beskrevet i spørgsmål 3, ved tildeling af kontrakten?
It was merely stipulated that alternative tenders would be accepted only if accompanied by a full list of works as required by the tender notice (main tender).
Såfremt spørgsmål 3 og spørgsmål 4a) besvares bekræftende: Er en ordregivende myndighed, der forestår en udbudsprocedure som beskrevet i spørgsmål 3, forpligtet til at forkaste alternative bud fra visse budgivere uden at efterprøve disse indholdsmæssigt, såfremt myndigheden ikke har fastsat kriterier for tildeling med hensyn til bedømmelsen af det alternative buds tekniske afvigelser fra udbudsbetingelserne?
Nor did the tender notice stipulate that alternative tenders had to ensure performance of work equivalent to that required by the official project and it was not explained what was meant by 'performance of equivalent work'. The contract documents merely referred to Paragraph 42 of the Bundesgesetz über die Vergabe von Aufträgen ( Bundesvergabegesetz) 1997 (Federal Procurement Law 1997, 'the BVergG').
Såfremt spørgsmål 3 og spørgsmål 4a) besvares bekræftende og spørgsmål 4b) benægtende: Er en ordregivende myndighed, der forestår en udbudsprocedure som omhandlet i spørgsmål 3, forpligtet til at antage et alternativt bud, hvis tekniske afvigelser i forhold til udbudsbetingelserne myndigheden ikke kan vurdere, som følge af, at udbudsbetingelserne ikke indeholder de nødvendige specifikationer, såfremt dette alternative bud er det laveste, og der i øvrigt ikke er blevet fastsat andre tildelingskriterier?«
However, the lowest tender conforming to the tender notice, that is to say, to the official project, was submitted by the tenderers' consortium Ilbau — LSH Fischer — Heilit & Woerner, which quoted a total price of ATS 87 750 304.30. In its alternative tender, Traunfellner proposed laying asphalt surfacing made from bitumen-based material rather than the concrete resurfacing provided for in the tender notice.
I den foreliggende sag bemærkes, at Bundesvergabeamt med sit første spørgsmål ikke anmoder Domstolen om en fortolkning af direktivets artikel 19, med henblik på efterfølgende at kunne vurdere, om det af Traunfellner afgivne bud er et alternativt bud i denne bestemmelses forstand, men opfordrer Domstolen til selv at foretage denne vurdering.
On 17 February 1998, the Federal Road Construction Division asked Traunfellner for information on the technical quality of its alternative tender.
En sådan fremgangsmåde ville imidlertid betyde, at Domstolen selv skulle anvende fællesskabsbestemmelsen på den sag, som er anlagt ved Bundesvergabeamt, hvilket den ikke har kompetence til inden for rammerne af artikel 234 EF.
After Traunfellner had provided the requested documents and explanations, the Federal Road Construction Division of the Government of the Land of Niederösterreich drew up a technical test report in which it was stated that experience gathered from previous contracts had shown that, despite careful execution of an asphalt design of this kind in compliance with the contract, grooves of some considerable depth had appeared after a short time, which had called for additional repair work.
Det følger af det ovenfor anførte, at Domstolen ikke har kompetence til at besvare det første spørgsmål.
According to that test report, preference had to be given to the general repair of the carriageway in concrete in accordance with the tender notice, particularly in view of the long life (30 years as opposed to 20 years in the case of an asphalt overlay) and deformation resistance of concrete.
Det andet spørgsmål
In particular, a concrete surface would have a 50% longer life and yet cost only 8.5% more.
Den forelæggende ret ønsker med dette spørgsmål nærmere bestemt oplyst, om direktivets artikel 19 skal fortolkes således, at kravet om, at den ordregivende myndighed skal angive de mindstekrav, de alternative bud skal opfylde for at blive taget i betragtning, er opfyldt, når der i udbudsbetingelserne blot er henvist til en national retsforskrift, hvorefter det alternative bud skal sikre levering af en ydelse, som er ligeværdig med den udbudte ydelse med hensyn til kvaliteten, uden nærmere at fastlægge de konkrete kriterier for sammenligning, på grundlag af hvilke ligeværdigheden kan efterprøves.
On the basis ofthat report, the commission responsible for the award of contracts within the Federal Road Construction Division decided, on 17 March 1998, to propose that the contract should be awarded to the Ilbau — LSH Fischer Heilit & Woerner consortium. On 17 April 1998, Traunfellner applied to the Bundesvergabeamt for a declaration that the contracting authority's decision to reject its alternative tender was null and void.
Det følger af sagens akter, at den nationale retsforskrift, der henvises til i spørgsmål 2, er BVergG's § 42, og at det deri anvendte begreb »alternative forslag« svarer til begrebet »alternative bud« i direktivets artikel 19.
According to the Bundesvergabeamt, that 'alternative tender' departed from the specifications of the tender notice to such an extent that it was no longer an admissible alternative tender and had to be rejected in any event.
Følgelig kan en henvisning i udbudsbetingelserne til en bestemmelse i national lovgivning ikke opfylde den forpligtelse, som er fastsat i direktivets artikel 19, stk. 2 (jf. analogt, for så vidt angår henvisning til en bestemmelse i national lovgivning med henblik på at fastlægge, at tildelingen af en offentlig bygge- og anlægskontrakt skulle ske på grundlag af det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud, dom af 20.9.1988, sag 31/87, Beentjes, og af 26.9.2000, sag C-225/98, Kommissionen mod Frankrig).
Under Austrian law, the Bundesvergabeamt is required to reconsider Traunfellner's application of 17 April 1998. However, as is explained in the order for reference, 'the contracting authority's disputed decision may no longer be declared void' since the contract has already been awarded and, under the BVergG, the Bundesvergabeamt is merely required to determine whether a right has been infringed and thus whether the contracting authority's decision to exclude Traunfellner's alternative tender from consideration was lawful.
Det er nemlig alene en angivelse i udbudsbetingelserne eller i udbudsbekendtgørelsen, som sikrer, at de bydende oplyses på samme måde om de mindstekrav, deres alternative bud skal opfylde, for at de kan tages i betragtning af den ordregivende myndighed.
It was in the course of that re-examination that the Bundesvergabeamt decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Artikel 19 omfatter således betingelserne for, at alternative bud kan tages i betragtning af de ordregivende myndigheder, mens artikel 30, der opregner de lovlige tildelingskriterier, vedrører et senere stadium i udbudsproceduren.
Is an alternative tender that consists in proposing an asphalt surface instead of overlaying the carriageway with concrete as specified in the tender notice a "variant" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC?
Det fremgår af de foregående præmisser, at det er en betingelse for, at alternative bud i direktivets artikel 19's forstand kan tages i betragtning, at de mindstekrav, de alternative bud skal opfylde, er angivet i udbudsbetingelserne, og at den blotte henvisning i udbudsbetingelserne til en national retsforskrift ikke er tilstrækkeligt til at opfylde dette krav.
Can a criterion established in national legislation to determine the admissibility of the acceptance of a "variant" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC, whereby "the performance of qualitatively equivalent work is ensured" by the variant, properly be regarded as a "minimum specification", required and stated by the contracting authority in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC, if the contract documents refer only to the national provision and do not specify the comparative parameters to be used to assess "equivalence"?
Det følger heraf, at hvis den ordregivende myndighed ikke har overholdt de i direktivets artikel 19 fastsatte betingelser for så vidt angår angivelse af mindstekravene, kan et alternativt bud ikke tages i betragtning, heller ikke selv om det i udbudsbekendtgørelsen ikke var angivet, at alternative bud ikke var tilladte, jf. direktivets artikel 19, stk. 2.
Does Article 30(1) and (2) of Directive 93/37/EEC in conjunction with the principles of transparency and equal treatment prohibit a contracting authority from making the acceptance of an alternative tender which differs from a tender conforming to the tender document in that it proposes a different technical quality conditional on a positive assessment based on a criterion in national legislation requiring that "the performance of qualitatively equivalent work is ensured" if the contract documents refer only to the national provision and do not specify the comparative parameters to be used to assess "equivalence"?
Med disse spørgsmål, som er stillet for det tilfælde, at det tredje spørgsmål besvares bekræftende, ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, hvilken betydning de begåede uregelmæssigheder for så vidt angår bedømmelsen af de alternative bud får for udbudsprocedurens senere forløb.
If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, may a contracting authority conclude a tendering procedure like that described in Question 3 by awarding the contract?
Det følger heraf, at disse spørgsmål må anses for at være af hypotetisk karakter og derfor skal afvises.
If the answers to Questions 3 and 4(a) are in the affirmative and the answer to Question 4(b) is in the negative, must a contracting authority conducting a tendering procedure as described in Question 3 accept a variant whose technical differences from the tender document it is unable to assess on the basis of contract award criteria owing to the absence of appropriate statements in the tender document if this variant is the lowest tender and contract award criteria have not otherwise been defined?'
»1) Artikel 19 i Rådets direktiv 93/37/EØF af 14. juni 1993 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter skal fortolkes således, at kravet om, at den ordregivende myndighed skal angive de mindstekrav, de alternative bud skal opfylde for at blive taget i betragtning ikke er opfyldt, når der i udbudsbetingelserne blot er henvist til en national retsforskrift, hvorefter det alternative bud skal sikre levering af en ydelse, som er ligeværdig med den udbudte ydelse med hensyn til kvaliteten.
In the present case, the Bundesvergabeamt is not, by its first question, seeking to obtain from the Court an interpretation of Article 19 of the Directive to enable it then to assess whether Traunfellner's tender is a variant within the meaning of that article but is asking the Court to make that assessment itself.
Artikel 30 i direktiv 93/37 kun kan finde anvendelse på alternative bud, som lovligt er taget i betragtning af den ordregivende myndighed i overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 19.*
By this question, the national tribunal is essentially asking whether Article 19 of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to set out the minimum specifications required by the contracting authority in order to consider variants is satisfied where the contract documents refer only to a provision of national legislation requiring that the alternative tender ensure the performance of work which is qualitatively equivalent to that for which tenders have been invited, without further specifying the comparative parameters on the basis of which such equivalence is to be assessed.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 10. april 2003.
It is apparent from the case-file that the provision of national legislation referred to in the second question is Paragraph 42(4) of the BVergG and that the term 'alternative tender' used in that provision corresponds to the term Variant' used in Article 19 of the Directive.
Præjudiciel »Fælles landbrugspolitik — afgifter i forbindelse med sundhedsmæssig undersøgelse og kontrol af fersk kød - direktiv 85/73/EØF* (Sjette Afdeling)
Tenderers may be deemed to be informed in the same way of the minimum specifications with which their variants must comply in order to be considered by the contracting authority only where those specifications are set out in the contract documents.
Hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
In order to answer this question, a distinction must be drawn between the minimum specifications referred to in Article 19 of the Directive and the award criteria referred to in Article 30 thereof.
Färber driver en autoriseret kødopskæringsvirksomhed i byen Neustadt/Weinstrasse.
Article 19 deals with the circumstances in which contracting authorities may take variants into consideration whereas Article 30, which lists the permissible criteria for the award of contracts, is concerned with a later stage in the procurement procedure.
I samme bygning befinder sig et slagteri, Schlachthof-Betriebs-GmbH, som leverer en del kød til Färber til opskæring i dennes opskæringsvirksomhed.
Accordingly, Article 30 can apply only to variants which have been properly taken into consideration in accordance with Article 19.
De to virksomheder er juridisk adskilte selskaber.
It is clear from the above paragraphs that consideration of variants within the meaning of Article 19 of the Directive is subject to fulfilment of the requirement that the minimum specifications with which those variants must comply be set out in the contract documents and that a mere reference in those documents to a provision of national legislation is insufficient to satisfy that requirement.
Byen Neustadt/Weinstrasse opkrævede en afgift for året 1999 af Färber for sundhedsmæssige undersøgelser og kontrol af opskæringsvirksomheden. Afgiften blev beregnet i henhold til delstatsbekendtgørelsens § , stk. 1, nr. 3, sammenholdt med nr. 6.3 i tredje afsnit i bilaget.
It follows that variants may not be taken into consideration where the contracting authority has failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 19 of the Directive with respect to the statement of the minimum specifications, even if they have not been declared inadmissible in the tender notice as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 19 of the Directive.
Den af Färber indgivne klage over afgiftsafgørelsen blev afvist af byen Neustadt/Weinstrasse, hvorefter Färber anlagde sag ved Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstrasse med påstand om annullation af afgørelsen under anbringende af, at en del af det kød, der opskæres i sagsøgerens virksomhed, stammer fra slagteriet Schlachthof-Betriebs-GmbH, der er beliggende i samme bygning, og at afgiften for denne del af kødet i overensstemmelse med delstatsbekendtgørelsens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 3, og nr. 6.4 i tredje afsnit i bilaget skal nedsættes med 55%.
By these questions, which are referred only in the event that the third question is answered in the affirmative, the national tribunal seeks clarification as to the effect which irregularities in the assessment of variants may have on the subsequent conduct of the procurement procedure.
Til støtte for sin påstand har Färber endvidere gjort gældende, at opskæringsvirksomheden og slagteriet skal betragtes som værende én og samme »virksomhed« i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 2, litra k), i direktiv 64/433.
In particular, the national tribunal is uncertain whether, in the event of such irregularities, the contracting authority may conclude the procurement procedure in question by awarding the contract (Question 4(a)) and, if so, whether the contracting authority must reject the variants proposed without examining their contents in view of the failure to define the award criteria for assessing the technical differences between the variant and the work for which tenders have been invited (Question 4(b)) or whether it must accept the variant where it is the lowest tender (Question 5).
Byen Neustadt/Weinstrasse har bestridt denne argumentation, idet den har anført, at et slagteri og en opskæringsvirksomhed kun kan betragtes som én og samme »virksomhed« i den relevante fællesskabsbestemmelses forstand, når de drives af den samme fysiske eller juridiske person.
In the present case, it is clear from the case-file that the procurement procedure in question has already been concluded, that the contract has already been awarded and that the proceedings before the national tribunal are concerned not with the legality of the decision on the award but rather with the legality of the decision by which the contracting authority rejected Traunfellner's alternative tender.
Da den under disse omstændigheder fandt, at afgørelsen af sagen afhænger af fortolkningen af bilag A, kapitel I, punkt 2, andet afsnit, til direktiv 85/73, besluttede Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstrasse at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål.
The question whether that procedure was properly conducted after the latter decision is therefore not the subject of the dispute brought before the national tribunal. The fourth and fifth questions, however, relate precisely to that stage in the procurement procedure.
Det første spørgsmål
It follows that those questions must be regarded as hypothetical and must therefore be declared inadmissible.
Med det andet spørgsmål spørger den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt, hvilke kriterier den myndighed, der er kompetent til at opkræve afgift i forbindelse med sundhedsmæssige undersøgelser og kontrol, skal lægge til grund ved afgørelsen af rækkevidden af den i bilag A, kapitel I, punkt 2, andet afsnit, til direktiv 85/73 omhandlede nedsættelse.
Article 30 of Directive 93/37 can apply only to variants which have been properly taken into consideration by the contracting authority in accordance with Article 19 of that directive.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling') den 27. februar 2003.
By order of 30 July 2001 the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Neustadt an der Weinstraße referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Annex A Chapter I, point 2, to Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985.
Han foreslog Domstolen at svare således:
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
»1) Bilag A, kapitel I, punkt 2, andet afsnit, til Rådets direktiv 85/73/EØF af 29. januar 1985 om finansiering af veterinærundersøgelse og -kontrol som omhandlet i direktiv 89/662/EØF, 90/425/EØF, 90/675/EØF og 91/496/EØF, som affattet ved Rådets direktiv 96/43/EF af 26. juni 1996 om ændring og kodifikation af direktiv 85/73 med henblik på finansiering af veterinærundersøgelse og -kontrol
Färber operates an approved cutting plant on the territory of the town of Neustadt an der Weinstraße. In the same building is the slaughterhouse of Schlachthof-Betriebs-GmbH, a company legally distinct from Färber, which supplies Färber with part of the meat it cuts in its cutting plant.
af levende dyr og visse animalske produkter og om ændring af direktiv 90/675 og 91/496, skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen ligeledes finder anvendelse, når opskæringsvirksomheden og den virksomhed, hvorfra kødet stammer, ikke indehaves af den samme fysiske eller juridiske person.
For health inspections and controls carried out at Färber's cutting plant in 1999, Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße claimed from Färber fees calculated in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1(1)(3) of the Land regulation in conjunction with point 6.3 of Part 3 of the Annex to the Land regulation.
Den i bestemmelsen fastsatte nedsættelse skal være proportional med den besparelse med hensyn til personaleomkostninger og administrationsudgifter, som opnås ved undersøgelse og kontrol i forbindelse med opskæring på grund af den geografiske nærhed mellem opskæringsvirksomheden og slagteriet.«
Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße rejected that argument, submitting that a slaughterhouse and a cutting plant may be regarded as a single 'establishment' within the meaning of the relevant Community legislation only if they are operated by the same natural or legal person.
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 79/409/EØF — beskyttelse af vilde fugle — datoer for åbning af jagtsæsonen — fravigelse* (Sjette Afdeling)
By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether the second paragraph of Annex A. Chapter I. point 2, to Directive 85/73 is to be interpreted as meaning that the reduction it lays down ol the amounts of the fees payable in respect of the health controls and inspections connected with cut ling operations applies also where the cutting plant and the establishment where the meat is obtained, which are situated in the same place, belong to two different natural or legal persons.