Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 13 (Apr)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)
Judge:

Judges Lenaerts (President), Silva de Lapuerta, Ilešic, von Danwitz, da Cruz Vilaça, Šváby and Biltgen (Presidents of Chambers), Rosas, Juhász (Rapporteur), Borg Barthet, Malenovsky, Bonichot, Vajda, Rodin and Jürimäe

Judgment Dates: 5 April 2016

Catchwords

European Union - Public procurement - Public service contracts - Awards procedure and criteria - Application by tenderer of unsuccessful bid for annulment of respondent company's decision to award public contract to successful tenderer - Counterclaim brought by successful tenderer - National law providing that counterclaim should be examined first and, if well founded, main action should be dismissed without any examination of the merits - Whether such provision compatible with EU law - Whether having received answer to question concerning interpretation of EU law, referring court required to do everything necessary to ensure interpretation of EU law was applied - , art 1(3) - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 267.

The Case

European Union Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that the third sub-paragraph of art 1(1) and of Council Directive (EEC) 89-665 were to be interpreted as meaning that a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who had been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of European Union public procurement law or rules transposing that law, with a view to excluding another tenderer, could not be dismissed as inadmissible under national procedural rules which provided that the counterclaim lodged by the other tenderer had to be examined first.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.