natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De angav ikke konkret, hvilken del af elektriciteten der ville hidrøre fra vedvarende energikilder, men gjorde blot gjorde opmærksom på, at de rådede over egne produktionsanlæg, som producerer elektricitet fra sådanne kilder.
Those applicants did not provide any concrete figures for the amount of electricity that they could supply from such sources, but instead merely stated that they had their own electricity generating plants in which they produced electricity from such sources.
Sagsøgte i hovedsagen fandt, at KELAG's bud var det mest fordelagtige af de fire afgivne bud, hvilket bud havde fået det største antal point for hvert af de to tildelingskriterier.
The defendant in the main proceedings considered that, of the four tenders submitted, the best was KELAG's, and that group received the most points for each of the two award criteria.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen modtog færrest points for de to kriterier.
The applicants in the main proceedings received the fewest points in respea of both criteria.
Ved afgørelse af 16. juli 2001 gav Bundesvergabeamt sagsøgerne i hovedsagen medhold og forbød den ordregivende myndighed at tildele kontrakten indtil den 10. september 2001.
After having informed the contracting authority as early as 9 and 30 May 2001 that they considered that various provisions in the invitation to tender, including the award aiterion relating to 'elearidty produced from renewable energy sources', were unlawful, the applicants in the main proceedings applied on 12 June
Det fremgår af den forelæggende rets oplysninger, at dens første spørgsmål må forstås således, at det indeholder to led.
The applicants in the main proceedings then instituted review proceedings before the Bundesvergabeamt, seeking, inter alia, annulment of the invitation to tender in its entirety, of a series of individual provisions in the contraa documents and of a number of decisions of the contracting authority.
Med spørgsmålet ønskes det først oplyst, om fællesskabsbestemmelserne om offentlige kontrakter, navnlig artikel 26 i direktiv 93/36, er til hinder for, at en ordregivende myndighed i forbindelse med bedømmelsen af det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud på en kontrakt, der vedrører levering af elektricitet, anvender et tildelingskriterium, der kræver levering af elektricitet, som er produceret på grundlag af vedvarende energikilder.
On a further application by the applicants, the Bundesvergabeamt made an interim order, by decision of 17 September 2001, permitting the contracting authority to award the contraa on condition that the award would be cancelled and the contraa rescinded in the event that even only one of the applications made to that body by the applicants in the main proceedings were granted or the decision to award the contract in question to one of the applicants' co-tenderers proved to be unlawful on the basis of any other finding of the Bundesvergabeamt.
Såfremt spørgsmålets første led besvares bekræftende, ønsker den forelæggende ret dernæst at få præciseret, hvilke krav fællesskabsretten stiller med hensyn til den konkrete anvendelse af et sådant kriterium, når henses til den særlige formulering af det kriterium, der omhandles i den sag, retten behandler, hvilket indebærer, at dens andet spørgsmåls andet led er underopdelt i flere underspørgsmål.
On 24 Oaober 2001, the framework contract was awarded to KELAG, subject to the conditions subsequent laid down in the decision referred to above.
Det første spørgsmåls første led
The first question
Når den ordregivende myndighed beslutter at tildele en kontrakt til den bydende, der har afgivet det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud, kan den tage hensyn til miljøkriterier, for så vidt som disse kriterier er forbundet med kontraktens genstand, ikke tillægger den nævnte ordregivende myndighed et ubetinget frit valg, er udtrykkeligt nævnt i udbudsbetingelserne eller udbudsbekendtgørelsen og overholder alle de grundlæggende principper i fællesskabsretten, herunder navnlig princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling.
In second place, if the first part of its question is answered in the affirmative, the Bundesvergabeamt asks for clarification of the Community law requirements as regards the concrete application of such a criterion, given the specific wording of the criterion at issue in the dispute before it, and, consequently, the second part of its question can be broken down into several sub-questions.
Andet led, litra a)
(a) has a weighting of 45%;
De ordregivende myndigheder kan, hvis det lægges til grund, at de overholder kravene i fællesskabsretten, ikke alene frit vælge kriterierne for kontraktens tildeling, men kan også fastlægge deres vægt, for så vidt som vægtningen muliggør en samlet vurdering af de valgte kriterier med henblik på at udvælge det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud.
(b) is not accompanied by requirements which permit the accuracy of the information contained in the tenders to be effectively verified, and does not necessarily serve to achieve the objective pursued;
Med hensyn til det tildelingskriterium, der omhandles i hovedsagen, bemærkes, som Domstolen allerede har fastslået, at anvendelsen af vedvarende energikilder til fremstilling af elektricitet er nyttig for beskyttelsen af miljøet, for så vidt som den bidrager til reduktion af drivhusgasemissioner, som er en af hovedårsagerne til de klimaændringer, som Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater har forpligtet sig til at bekæmpe.
(d) requires tenderers to state how much elearicity they can supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount, where the supply volume is taken into account only to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption to be expected in the context of the contraa to which the invitation to tender relates.
Når der således henses til den vigtighed, der er forbundet med det fonnål, der forfølges med kriteriet i hovedsagen, kan det ikke antages, at en vægtning heraf med 45% hindrer en samlet vurdering af de anvendte kriterier med henblik på at udvælge det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud.
Where the contracting authority deddes to award a contract to the tenderer who submits the most economically advantageous tender it may take into consideration ecological criteria, provided that they are linked to the subjea-matter of the contraa, do not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the authority, are expressly mentioned in the contract documents or the tender notice, and comply with all the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the prindple of non-discrimination.
Andet led, litra b)
Second part, point (a)
Når en ordregivende myndighed foreskriver et tildelingskriterium og angiver, at den hverken ønsker eller kan kontrollere nøjagtigheden af de bydendes oplysninger, tilsidesætter den princippet om ligebehandling, idet et sådant kriterium ikke garanterer gennemsigtighed og objektivitet i udbudsproceduren.
Provided that they comply with the requirements of Community law, contraaing authorities are free not only to choose the criteria for awarding the contraa but also to determine the weighting of such criteria, provided that the weighting enables an overall evaluation to be made of the criteria applied in order to identify the most economically advantageous tender.
Det må herefter konstateres, at et tildelingskriterium, hvortil der ikke er knyttet krav, der gør det muligt at foretage en effektiv kontrol med nøjagtigheden af de oplysninger, der er fremlagt af de bydende, er i strid med de fællesskabsretlige principper, der gælder for offentlige kontrakter.
As regards the award criterion at issue in the main proceedings, the Court has already held that the use of renewable energy sources for producing electridty is useful for proteaing the environment in so far as it contributes to the reduaion in emissions of greenhouse gases which are amongst the main causes of climate change which the European Community and its Member States have pledged to combat.
For så vidt angår den forelæggende rets spørgsmål om, hvorvidt det i hovedsagen omhandlede tildelingskriterium tilsidesætter fællesskabsbestemmelserne, i det omfang det ikke nødvendigvis er egnet til at bidrage til fremme af produktion af elektricitet fra vedvarende energikilder, er det tilstrækkeligt at anføre, at selv om det lægges til grund, at dette faktisk er tilfældet, kan et sådant kriterium ikke alene af den grund, at det ikke nødvendigvis gør det muligt at nå det tilsigtede mål, anses for at være uforeneligt med fællesskabsbestemmelserne om offentlige kontrakter.
Having regard, therefore, to the importance of the objective pursued by the aiterion at issue in the main proceedings, its weighting of 45% does not appear to present an obstacle to an overall evaluation of the criteria applied in order to identify the most economically advantageous tender.
Andet led, litra c)
Second part, point (b)
Den omstændighed, at den ordregivende myndighed i hovedsagen i udbudsbekendtgørelsen har undladt at præcisere for hvilken periode, de bydende skulle angive den mængde elektricitet fra vedvarende kilder, de kunne levere, kan være en tilsidesættelse af principperne om ligebehandling og gennemsigtighed, hvis det måtte vise sig, at denne undladelse har gjort det vanskeligt eller endog umuligt for de bydende at kende den nøjagtige rækkevidde af det omhandlede kriterium og derfor være i stand til at fortolke det på samme måde.
Where a contraaing authority lays down an award criterion indicating that it neither intends, nor is able, to verify the accuracy of the information supplied by the tenderers, it infringes the prindple of equal treatment, because such a criterion does not ensure the transparency and objectivity of the tender procedure.
Da der er tale om en vurdering af faktisk karakter, tilkommer det den nationale ret under hensyntagen til samtlige sagens omstændigheder at vurdere, om det i hovedsagen omhandlede tildelingskriterium på trods af denne undladelse er blevet formuleret tilstrækkelig klart til at opfylde kravene til ligebehandling og gennemsigtighed i fremgangsmåderne for tildeling af offentlige kontrakter.
As regards the Bundesvergabeamt's question as to whether the award criterion at issue in the main proceedings infringes Community law in so far as it is not necessarily capable of helping to increase the amount of elearicity produced from renewable energy sources, it need only be noted that even if that is in faa the case, such a aiterion cannot be regarded as incompatible with the Community provisions in the field of public procurement simply because it does not necessarily serve to achieve the objective pursued.
Andet led, litra d)
Second part, point (c)
Det må fastslås, at det i hovedsagen anvendte tildelingskriterium ikke vedrører den ydelse, der er genstand for kontrakten, nemlig levering af de mængder elektricitet til den ordregivende myndighed, der svarer til det forventede årlige forbrug som fastsat i udbuddet, men derimod vedrører de mængder, de bydende har leveret eller vil levere til andre kunder end den ordregivende myndighed.
In the case at issue in the main proceedings, the faa that in the invitation to tender the contracting authority omitted to determine the period in respect of which tenderers had to state in their tenders the amount of electridty from renewable energy sources which they could supply could be an infringement of the prindples of equal treatment and transparency were it to transpire that that omission made it difficult or even impossible for tenderers to know the exaa scope of the criterion in question and thus to be able to interpret it in the same way.
Et tildelingskriterium, der udelukkende henviser til mængden af elektricitet fra vedvarende energikilder, der overstiger det forventede årlige forbrug, som det er fastsat i udbuddet, kan ikke anses for at være forbundet med kontraktens genstand.
Inasmuch as that requires a tactual assessment, it is for the national court to determine, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, whether, despite that omission, the award criterion at issue in the main
Med henblik på at give Domstolen mulighed for at udfylde sin rolle i overensstemmelse med traktaten, er det ubetinget nødvendigt, at de nationale retsinstanser i tilfælde, hvor grundene til, at de finder, at en besvarelse af deres spørgsmål er nødvendig for tvistens løsning, ikke klart fremgår af sagen, redegør for disse.
In the case at issue in the main proceedings, the award criterion applied does not relate to the service which is the subject-matter of the contract, namely the supply of an amount of elearidty to the contraaing authority corresponding to its expected annual consumption as laid down in the invitation to tender, but to the amount of electridty that the tenderers have supplied, or will supply, to other customers.
I den foreliggende sag råder Domstolen ikke over oplysninger, der peger i den retning.
An award criterion that relates solely to the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in excess of the expeaed annual consumption, as laid down in the invitation to tender, cannot be regarded as linked to the subject-matter of the contraa.
Når der således ikke foreligger oplysninger, hvoraf det kan udledes, at det er nødvendigt for løsningen af tvisten i hovedsagen, at det andet og tredje spørgsmål besvares, bør disse spørgsmål anses for at være hypotetiske, hvorfor de ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
It follows that in so far as it requires tenderers to state how much electricity they can supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount, where the supply volume is taken into account only to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption expected in the context of the procurement, the award criterion applied in the case at issue is not compatible with the Community legislation on public procurement.
Fjerde spørgsmål
The second and third questions
Med sit fjerde spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om de fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, der gælder for udbud af offentlige kontrakter, navnlig artikel 26 i direktiv 93/36, pålægger den ordregivende myndighed at tilbagekalde udbuddet, når et af de fastsatte tildelingskriterier under en klageprocedure i henhold til artikel 1 i direktiv 89/665 viser sig at være ulovligt.
By these two questions, which can be examined together, the Bundesvergabeamt is essentially asking whether Article 2(l)(b) of Direaive 89/665 precludes a provision of national law such as point 2 of Paragraph 117(1) of the Bundesgesetz über die Vergabe von Aufträgen (Bundesvergabegesetz) 1997 (1997 Federal Public Procurement Law; 'the BVergG'), which makes the annulment in review proceedings of an unlawful dedsion by a contracting authority dependent on proof that the unlawful dedsion materially influenced the outcome of the procurement procedure and whether, having regard to Article 26 of Directive 93/36 in particular, the answer to that question must differ if the proof of that influence derives from the examination by the review body of whether the ranking of the tenders actually submitted would have been different had they been re-evaluated disregarding the unlawful award criterion.
Det fremgår af de oplysninger, den forelæggende ret har afgivet, at det fjerde spørgsmål vedrører den situation, hvor konstateringen af, at en beslutning, der vedrører et tildelingskriterium, er ulovlig, fører til dens annullation.
In order that the Court may perform its task in accordance with the Treaty, it is essential for national courts to explain, when the reasons are not clear beyond doubt from the file, why they consider that a reply to their questions is necessary to enable them to give judgment.
Med henblik på at besvare det således omformulerede spørgsmål bemærkes, således som Domstolen allerede har fastslået, at principperne om ligebehandling og gennemsigtighed i udbudsprocedurerne indebærer, at de ordregivende myndighed skal fastholde den samme fortolkning af kriterierne for tildeling i løbet af hele udbuddet
Therefore, since there is no information before the Court to show that an answer to the second and third questions is needed in order to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings, those questions must be regarded as hypothetical and, accordingly, inadmissible.
Der er således for så vidt angår selve tildelingskriterierne i endnu højere grad grund til at erkende, at disse overhovedet ikke må ændres i løbet af udbudsproceduren.
By its fourth question the Bundesvergabeamt is essentially asking whether the provisions of Community law governing the award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of Direaive 93/36, require the contraaing authority to cancel the invitation to tender if it transpires in review proceedings under Article 1 of Directive 89/665 that a decision relating to one of the award criteria laid down by that authority is unlawful.
Det følger heraf, at i det tilfælde, hvor klageinstansen annullerer en beslutning, der vedrører et tildelingskriterium, kan den ordregivende myndighed ikke gyldigt fortsætte udbudsproceduren og se bort fra kriteriet, idet det vil være det samme som at ændre de kriterier, der anvendes i det omhandlede udbud.
It is clear from the explanations provided by the Bundesvergabeamt that the fourth question concerns the situation where the consequence of a finding that a dedsion relating to an award criterion is unlawful is the annulment of that decision. It must thus be understood as asking whether the Community legislation
•1) Fællesskabsbestemmelserne om offentage kontrakter er ikke til hinder for, at en ordregivende myndighed i forbindelse med bedømmelsen af det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud på en kontrakt for levering af elektricitet anvender et tildelingskriterium med en vægt på 45%, der kræver levering af elektricitet, som er produceret på grundlag af vedvarende energikilder, idet den omstændighed, at det nævnte kriterium ikke nødvendigvis gør det muligt at nå det tilsigtede mål, i den forbindelse er irrelevant.
For the purpose of answering the question as reformulated, it should be pointed out that the Court has already held that the principles of equal treatment and transparency of tender procedures imply an obligation on the part of contracting authorities to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the procedure.
Derimod er fællesskabsbestemmelserne til hinder for et sådant kriterium, i det omfang kriteriet ikke er ledsaget af krav, der gør det muligt at foretage en effektiv kontrol af nøjagtigheden af de oplysninger, der er indeholdt i buddene, og
As far as the award criteria themselves are concerned, it is α fortiori clear that they must not be amended in any way during the tender procedure.
— pålægger de bydende, at de angiver, hvilken elektricitetsmængde, der er produceret på grundlag af vedvarende energikilder, de vä kunne levere til en ikke nærmere bestemt kundekreds, og tildeler maksimumspoint til den bydende, der angiver den største mængde, og hvorved der kun tages hensyn til den mængde, der overstiger det i henhold til den udbudte kontrakt forventede forbrug.
It follows that where the review body annuls a dedsion relating to an award criterion, the contracting authority cannot validly continue the tender procedure leaving aside that aiterion, since that would be tantamount to amending the criteria applicable to the procedure in question.
2) Fællesskabsbestemmelserne om offentlige kontrakter pålægger den ordregivende myndighed at tilbagekalde udbuddet, når en beslutning der vedrører et af de tildelingskriterier, den har fastsat, under en klageprocedure i henhold til artikel 1 i direktiv 89/665 viser sig at være ulovligt og derfor annulleres afklageinstansen.* klageinstansen.*
On the other hand, that legislation does preclude such a criterion where it is not accompanied by requirements which permit the accuracy of the information contained in the tenders to be effectively verified, it requires tenderers to state how much electricity they can supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount, where the supply volume is taken into account only to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption expected in the context of the procurement.
»EF-varemærker—forordning (EF) nr. 40/94—absolutte registreringshindringer—beskrivende varemærke —fornødent særpræg opnået ved brug — ordmærket TDl — retten til at blive hørt — rækkevidden af begrundelsespligten — konsekvenserne af en tilsidesættelse af begrundelsespligten* (Anden Afdeling)
'The provisions of Community law relating to the award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of Coundl Direaive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contraas, prohibit a contraaing authority from laying down an award criterion in relation to the supply of electricity which is given a 45% weighting and which requires a tenderer to state, without being bound to a defined supply period, how much electridty he can supply from renewable sources to a group of consumers not more closely defined, where the maximum number of points is given to whichever tenderer states the highest amount and a supply volume is taken into account only to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption to be expected in the context of the contract to which the invitation to tender relates.'
Ved afgørelse af 8. november 2001 (herefter »den anfægtede afgørelse«) afslog Første Appelkammer klagen med den begrundelse, at det ansøgte varemærke faldt ind under artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b) og c), i forordning nr. 40/94.
'The provisions of Community law relating to the award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of Directive 93/36/EEC, prohibit making the setting aside of an unlawful decision in review proceedings under Article 1 of Direaive 89/665/EEC dependent on proof that the unlawful decision was material to the outcome of the procurement procedure, where that proof has to be achieved by the review body examining whether the ranking of the tenders actually submitted would have been different had they been re-evaluated disregarding the unlawful award criterion.'
Sagsøgeren har bestridt, at bogstaverne »T«, »D« og »I« har en bestemt betydning som forbogstaver. Sagsøgeren har desuden anført, at det erkendes i den anfægtede afgørelse, at disse bogstaver som forbogstaver kan svare til meget forskellige ord, og at selve forkortelsen TDI som sådan kan have to forskellige betydninger.
'The provisions of Community law relating to the award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of Directive 93/36/EEC, require a contraaing authority to cancel the invitation to tender if it transpires in review proceedings under Article 1 of Direaive 89/665/EEC that one of the award criteria it laid down is unlawful and is therefore set aside by the review body.'
Tilsvarende er motoren i A6-modellen i en anden reklameannonce, der er gengivet i bilag K8 til stævningen, præsenteret som den »første V6 TDi motor«.
Case T-16/02 Audi AG ν Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) Intellectual property
Da køretøjer principielt markedsføres under de samme betegnelser i hele det indre marked, findes der nemlig ikke forskelle mellem de forskellige dele af Fællesskabet med hensyn tu den relevante kundekreds' forståelse af betydningen af et ordmærke af denne type — og navnlig tegnet TDI — og forholdet mellem dette og de varer og tjenesteydelser, der er omfattet af varemærkeansøgningen.
(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal -Descriptive mark — Distinctive character acquired through use — Word mark TD1 — Right to be heard — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Consequences of a breach of the duty to state reasons) (Second Chamber)