natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Disciplinærrådet til at afgive udtalelse i det tilfælde, hvor det har iværksat undersøgelse, overskrides med ca. ni måneder, men appellanten har ikke fremført nogen juridiske argumenter eller nogen faktiske omstændigheder til godtgørelse af, at denne overskridelse forhindrede ham i at forsvare sig effektivt eller skabte en berettiget forventning hos ham om, at han ikke ville blive pålagt en disciplinær sanktion.
The Court did not adjudicate in that line of decisions on the question whether the fact that the timelimits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations are exceeded to a considerable extent, amounting to an infringement of the rules of sound administration, may in certain cases mean that the disciplinary decision adopted after their expiry must be declared void.
Appellanten har heller ikke fremført sådanne argumenter hvad angår den frist, som er indrømmet ansættelsesmyndigheden til at træffe sin afgørelse.
In that regard, it cannot be precluded that the fact that those timelimits are exceeded to a considerable extent may in certain cases amount to an infringement of a general principle of Community law applicable to such proceedings.
Ganske vist foreligger der en væsentlig forsinkelse, når den i artikel 7 i vedtægtens bilag IX fastsatte frist på tre måneder for
Nor has any argument of that type been raised by the appellant as regards the fact that the time-limit of one month within which the appointing authority is required to take its decision was exceeded.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 22. marts 2001.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 22 March 2001.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
'(1) dismiss the appeal;
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 93/37/EØF — offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter — tildeling af kontrakter -unormalt lave bud — regler for begrundelse og udelukkelse, der gælder i en medlemsstat — en ordregivende myndigheds fællesskabsretlige forpligtelser« (Sjette Afdeling) iværksat af ANAS med henblik på udførelse af anlægsarbejder vedrørende udvidelse af et motorvejsafsnit til en tresporet vej, med en udbudssum på 122 250 216 000 ITL.
Preliminary ruling (Directive 93137IEEC — Public works contracts — Award of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Detailed rules for explanation and rejection applied in a Member State — Obligations of the awarding authority under Community law) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved to kendelser af 26. maj 1999, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 30. juli 1999, har Consiglio di Stato i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 30, stk. 4, i Rådets direktiv 93/37/EØF af 14. juni 1993 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter.
By two orders of 26 May 1999, received at the Court Registry on 30 July 1999, the Consiglio di Stato referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC five questions on the interpretation of Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.
Mantovani SpA (herefter »Mantovani«) (sag C-286/99) mod ANAS - Ente nazionale per le strade (herefter »ANAS«), der er en italiensk offentlig ordregivende myndighed, i anledning af, at de af Lombardini og Mantovani i forbindelse med to begrænsede udbud for indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter afgivne bud var blevet forkastet med den begrundelse, at de var unormalt lave.
Mantovani SpA ('Mantovani')(C-286/99) and ANAS - Ente nazionale per le strade (National Road Agency; 'ANAS'), the contracting authority under public law in Italy, concerning the rejection of tenders submitted by Lombardini and Mantovani in two restricted public works tendering procedures on the ground that those tenders were abnormally low.
Tvisterne spørgsmål
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Sag C-285/99
Case C-285/99
Lombardini deltog i 1997 i en procedure vedrørende et begrænset udbud for tildeling af en offentlig bygge- og anlægskontrakt, som var
In 1997, Lombardini took part in a restricted procedure for the award of a public works contract issued by the ANAS, with a view to carrying out works widening a section of motorway to three lanes, with a basic contract value of ITL 122 250 216 000.
af buddet, hvilke i øvrigt kun kunne angå 75% af udbudssummen, men at den ordregivende myndighed i henhold til direktivet uden undtagelse har pligt til at anmode den pågældende virksomhed om uddybende og opklarende oplysninger som led i en drøftelse med reel adgang for de bydende til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
In accordance with Article 21(la), the letter of invitation required tenderers to include with their bids explanations concerning the most significant price components equivalent to 75% of the basic contract value mentioned in the tender notice.
Eftersom Tribunale amministrativo ved afgørelse af 1. juli 1998 havde afvist Lombardini's sagsanlæg, appellerede selskabet sagen til Consiglio di Stato.
The tender and the explanations as to its composition were, under threat of exclusion, to be drafted in accordance with the rules attached to that invitation and included in the envelope containing the administrative documentation.
nødvendig ved kontrollen af de tilbudte prisers holdbarhed for de væsentligste priskomponenter, skulle indlægges i særskilte og forseglede kuverter, idet undladelse heraf altid ville medføre udelukkelse af det pågældende bud.
It was also stipulated, again under threat of exclusion, that the explanatory documentation necessary to check the soundness of the prices bid for the significant components of the contract was to be inserted into a separate sealed envelope, which was to be opened and its contents examined only in respect of tenders offering a discount higher than the arithmetical anomaly threshold.
Disse kuverter måtte kun blive åbnet, og deres indhold kun blive undersøgt, for så vidt angik bud, der udviste et større nedslag end den aritmetiske tærskel for, hvilke bud der skulle anses for at være unormalt lave.
In the event that the contract was awarded to a tenderer whose bid offered such a discount, it was further provided that the price analyses and explanations produced in support of the tender were to form an integral part of the latter and were to be attached to the contract with contractual force.
For det tilfælde, at kontrakten skulle tildeles en bydende, hvis bud udviste et sådant nedslag, var det desuden bestemt, at de prisanalyser og begrundelser, der var blevet fremsat til støtte for buddet, skulle udgøre en integreret del af dette, og at de skulle vedlægges kontrakten og have kontraktstatus.
Having fixed the anomaly threshold for the contract in question at 28.004%, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the ministerial decree of 28 April 1997, the competent authority opened only envelopes containing the explanatory documentation in respect of those tenders offering a discount shown to be above that threshold, which included the tender by Lombardini.
Efter at den kompetente myndighed i overensstemmelse med betingelserne i det ministerielle dekret af 28. april 1997 for den omhandlede kontrakt havde fastsat tærsklen for, hvilke bud der skulle anses for unormalt lave, til 28,004%, foranstaltede den udelukkende åbning af de kuverter, som indeholdt begrundelser vedrørende bud, der havde udvist et større nedslag end denne tærskel, heriblandt buddet fra Lombardini.
Following the examination of that documentation, the authority declared all tenders offering a discount above that threshold inadmissible, without however giving the undertakings concerned the opportunity to submit other explanations after their tenders had been judged to be abnormally low and before the final awarding of the contract.
Efter at have foretaget en gennemgang af den nævnte dokumentation fastslog den kompetente myndighed, at alle bud, som udviste nedslag, der oversteg denne tærskel, skulle afvises, idet den imidlertid ikke, efter at den havde afgjort, at de pågældende virksomheders bud var unormalt lave, og før den endelige tildeling af kontrakten havde fundet sted, gav de pågældende virksomheder mulighed for at fremkomme med yderligere begrundelser.
Lombardini's tender, which offered a discount of 29.88%, was thus excluded and the contract was awarded to Società Italiana per Condotte d'Acqua SpA, whose tender, offering a discount of 27.70%, was the lowest of the bids not regarded as being abnormally low.
Consiglio di Stato har anført, at de virksomheder, der deltager i et udbud, efter de italienske bestemmelser og den italienske administrative praksis allerede ved afgivelsen af buddet på særlige hertil udformede skemaer skal anføre begrundelser for mindst 75% af udbudssummen, idet buddet ellers udelukkes fra udbuddet, selv om virksomhederne ikke på tidspunktet for afgivelsen af deres bud, før samtlige antagne bud er blevet åbnet, kender størrelsen af det nedslag, den ordregivende myndighed vil anse for at være unormalt.
Lombardini then brought an action before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), arguing that the Italian legislation did not comply with the requirements of the Directive inasmuch as, in order to remove any suspicion of abnormality, it was not sufficient to assess the explanations supplied on the submission of the tender, which might, moreover, concern only 75% of the basic contract price, but that, in the light of the directive, it was essential for the contracting authority then to ask the undertaking in question for details and clarifications in the context of a genuine exchange of information and argument.
Idet Consiglio di Stato således var af den opfattelse, at sagen rejser spørgsmål om fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
The Administrative Court having dismissed its action by a decision of 1 July 1998, Lombardini brought the dispute before the Consiglio di Stato.
Lombardini's bud, der udviste et nedslag på 29,88%, blev således udelukket fra proceduren, og kontrakten blev tildelt Società Italiana per Condotte d'Acqua SpA, hvis bud, der udviste et nedslag på 27,70%, var det laveste af de bud, der ikke var blevet anset for at være unormalt lave.
The Consiglio makes the point that Italian legislation and administrative practice require undertakings participating in a tender procedure, on the submission of their tenders, to provide explanations, on forms prepared for the purpose, and corresponding to at least 75% of the basic contract value, under threat of automatic exclusion from the tender, even though those operators are not able to know, at the time they submit their file and before the examination of all the tenders admitted to the procedure, the level of discount which the contracting authority will regard as abnormal.
Lombardini anlagde herefter sag ved Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italien), idet selskabet gjorde gældende, at de italienske bestemmelser ikke var i overensstemmelse med direktivets krav, idet det ikke var tilstrækkeligt til at fjerne enhver mistanke om, at der var tale om et unormalt lavt bud, at foretage en bedømmelse af de begrundelser, der var anført ved afgivelsen
The Consiglio di Stato takes the view that resolution of the dispute requires it to be determined whether that legal situation complies with the Directive or whether, on the contrary, the Directive requires the contracting authority to exchange information and argument after the submission of the tenders, by means of an individual review in discussion with the operator concerned, without any time-limit for the provision by the latter of evidence capable of corroborating the credibility of his tender.
Mantovani deltog i 1997 i et begrænset udbud, der var iværksat af ANAS med henblik på anlæg af et afsnit af en provinsvej. Det fremgik af udbudsmaterialet, at kontrakten ville blive tildelt den bydende virksomhed, der gav det største nedslag i forhold til udbudssummen på 15 720 000 000 ITL.
Considering that resolution of the case thus required interpretation of Community law, the Consiglio di Stato decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
åbningen af kuverterne at fremkomme med argumenter om de elementer i de tilbudte priser, som har vakt mistanke, og
In 1997, Mantovani took part in a restricted tendering procedure initiated by the ANAS for construction work on a stretch of country road.
Eftersom tærsklen for, hvilke bud der skulle anses for at være unormalt lave, var blevet fastsat til 40,865%, blev Mantovani's bud, der udviste et nedslag på 41,460%, hvilket nedslag således oversteg den nævnte tærskel, udelukket fra proceduren med samme begrundelse som den, der i sag C-285/99 førte til udelukkelse af Lombardini's bud.
The anomaly threshold having been fixed at 40.865%, Mantovani's tender, which involved a discount of 41.460%, above that threshold, was excluded for reasons similar to those which led to the exclusion of Lombardini's tender in Case C-285/99.
Kontrakten for anlægsarbejderne blev tildelt virksomheden Paolo Bregoli, hvis bud var det laveste blandt de bud, der ikke var blevet anset for at være unormalt lave.
The works were awarded to the undertaking Paolo Bregoli, whose tender was the lowest amongst those not regarded as abnormally low.
Mantovani appellerede sagen til Consiglio di Stato, der — ud fra overvejelser svarende til dem, den har gjort sig som led i sag C-285/99 — har besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen fem præjudicielle spørgsmål med samme indhold som dem, der er forelagt i sag C285/99.
Mantovani having brought the dispute before the Consiglio di Stato, the latter, basing its argument on considerations similar to those set out in connection with Case C-285/99, decided to stay proceedings and refer five questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, worded identically with those in Case C-285/99.
De præjudicielle spørgsmål, som skal behandles samlet, skal forstås således, at den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt ønsker svar på, om direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4, skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for bestemmelser og administrativ praksis i en medlemsstat, som
The questions referred to the Court, which it will be convenient to examine together, should be understood as asking essentially whether Article 30(4) of the Directive is to be interpreted as precluding legislation and administrative practice of a Member State which:
Bortset fra det forhold, at de bydende virksomheder i henhold til de bestemmelser og den administrative praksis, der finder anvendelse i hovedsagerne, ikke på tidspunktet for afgivelsen af deres bud er forpligtet til at fremkomme med begrundelser for mere end 75% af udbudssummen, selv om det er vigtigt, at de kan fremlægge bevis for holdbarheden af deres bud i relation til samtlige de elementer, som buddene er sammensat af, bemærkes, at et sådant krav om, at begrundelserne skal afgives på forhånd, under alle omstændigheder ikke er i overensstemmelse med ånden bag den kontrolprocedure med adgang for de bydende til at fremsætte bemærkninger, som er indført ved direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4.
— first, allow the contracting authority to reject as abnormally low tenders offering a discount exceeding the anomaly threshold — calculated in accordance with a mathematical formula by reference to the whole of the tenders received for the procedure in question, so that tenderers are not in a position to know that threshold at the time they lodge their file —, where that authority makes its decision taking account only of explanations of the proposed prices, relating to at least 75% of the basic contract value referred to in the contract notice, which the tenderers were required, under threat of being excluded from participation, to attach to their tender, without giving them the opportunity to express their point of view, after the opening of the envelopes, concerning the elements of the prices proposed which gave rise to suspicions, and second, require the contracting authority to take into consideration, for the purposes of checking abnormally low tenders, only explanations based on the economy of the construction method, technical solutions chosen, or exceptionally favourable conditions available to the tenderer, but not explanations relating to all those elements for which minimum values are laid down by law, regulation or administrative provision or can be ascertained from official data.
på den ene side bemyndiger den ordregivende myndighed til at afvise bud som unormalt lave, som udviser et nedslag, der er større end tærsklen for, hvad der må anses for at være normalt — beregnet efter en matematisk formel under hensyntagen til samtlige bud afgivet i forbindelse med det pågældende udbud, således at de bydende ikke kan kende denne tærskel på tidspunktet for afgivelsen af deres bud — når den nævnte myndighed udelukkende træffer sin afgørelse under hensyntagen til de begrundelser for de tilbudte priser, der svarer til i alt fald 75% af den i udbudsbekendtgørelsen angivne udbudssum, hvilke begrundelser de bydende skulle vedlægge deres bud, idet de ellers ville blive udelukket fra at deltage i udbuddet, uden at give de bydende mulighed for efter
Apart from the fact that, under the legislation and administrative practice applicable in the main proceedings, the tendering undertakings are required at the time they submit their file to provide explanations in respect of only 75% of the value of the contract, whereas it is necessary for them to be able to prove the genuine nature of their tender in respect of all its constituent elements, such prior explanations are not in any event in accordance with the spirit of the inter partes examination procedure established by Article 30(4) of the Directive.
Den ovenfor anførte fortolkning er i øvrigt den eneste, som er i overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4, både for så vidt angår bestemmelsens bogstav som dens formål.
It is essential that each tenderer suspected of submitting an abnormally low tender should have the opportunity effectively to state his point of view in that respect, giving him the opportunity to supply all explanations as to the various elements of his tender at a time - necessarily after the opening of all the envelopes — when he is aware not only of the anomaly threshold applicable to the contract in question and of the fact that his tender has appeared abnormally low, but also of the precise points which have raised questions on the part of the contracting authority.
Direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4, er ikke i sig selv til hinder for en forudgående begrundelsespligt som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, for så vidt som den ordregivende myndighed i øvrigt overholder alle de krav, der følger af bestemmelsen.
The above interpretation is, moreover, the only one which complies with both the wording and the purpose of Article 30(4) of the Directive.
Selv om det er fast retspraksis, at fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at visse efter et matematisk kriterium bedømte bud ex officio udelukkes fra at komme i betragtning ved udbudsproceduren, er fællesskabsretten derimod i princippet ikke til hinder for anvendelsen af et matematisk kriterium som den tærskel for, hvornår et bud skal anses for at være unormalt lavt, der i hovedsagerne har fundet anvendelse, med henblik på at fastlægge, hvilke bud der forekommer at være unormalt lave, forudsat imidlertid at det resultat, som anvendelsen af dette kriterium fører til, ikke er ufravigeligt, samt at der sker overholdelse af kravet om, at der i overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4, skal foretages en kontrol af disse bud med adgang til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
Article 30(4) of the Directive precludes legislation and administrative practice, such as that applicable in the cases referred, which allow the contracting authority to exclude a tender as abnormally low solely on the basis of explanations of the most significant price components, produced at the same time as the tender itself, without carrying out any inter partes examination of the suspect tenders by requesting clarification on points of doubt emerging on first examination and giving the undertakings concerned the opportunity to put forward their arguments in that regard before the final decision is taken.
Direktivets artikel 30, stk. 4, er til hinder for bestemmelser og en administrativ praksis som den, der finder anvendelse i hovedsagerne, hvorefter den ordregivende myndighed udelukkende med støtte i begrundelser for de væsentligste priskomponenter, som er fremført samtidig med selve buddet, kan udelukke et bud som værende unormalt lavt, uden at den ordregivende myndighed har foretaget nogen form for undersøgelse af de bud, der mistænkes for at være unormalt lave, hvorunder der gives adgang til at fremsætte bemærkninger og anmodes om opklarende oplysninger på de tvivlsomme punkter, der kom frem under den første gennemgang, og gives de pågældende virksomheder mulighed for at gøre deres argumenter gældende forud for den endelige beslutning.
In the tendering procedures at issue in the main proceedings, at the time when the tenderer submits his tender, which must be accompanied by explanations covering 75% of the basic contract value mentioned in the contract notice, he is not aware of the precise aspects of his tender which will be suspected of being abnormal, so that, at that stage of the procedure, he is not in a position to supply useful and complete explanations in support of the various elements constituting his tender.
Selv om det er ubestrideligt, at alle fællesskabsretlige krav skal overholdes under de forskellige led i de nationale fremgangsmåder for indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter, som i øvrigt skal gennemføres på en måde, der sikrer overholdelse af principperne om den frie konkurrence og om ligebehandling af bydende samt af gennemsigtighedsforpligtelsen, kan Domstolen ikke tage stilling til disse anbringender.
The national court also asks whether Article 30(4) of the Directive similarly precludes legislative provisions and administrative practice of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, first, tenderers are required, under threat of being excluded from participation in the contract, to accompany their tender with price explanations, covering at least 75% of the basic value of that contract, using forms designed for the purpose and, second, the anomaly threshold for tenders is calculated, in respect of each contract, on the basis of a mathematical formula which is a function of all the tenders actually lodged in the tendering procedure in question.
Efterprøvelsen af, om disse anbringender er begrundede, forudsætter nemlig en fastlæggelse og vurdering af faktiske forhold såvel som en fortolkning af national ret, hvilket henhører under den forelæggende rets enekompetence.
Article 30(4) of the Directive does not therefore preclude a requirement to provide explanation in advance, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, taken in isolation, provided that all the requirements arising from that provision are otherwise complied with by the contracting authorities.