| | 32004L0018: c3-35.2Public contract, framework agreement    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 35.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities which wish to award a public contract or a framework agreement by open, restricted or, under the conditions laid down in Article 30, negotiated procedure with the publication of a contract notice or, under the conditions laid down in Article 29, a competitive dialogue, shall make known their intention by means of a contract notice. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 42.1 | Notices used as a means of calling for competition
1. In the case of supply, works or service contracts, the call for competition may be made:
(a) by means of a periodic indicative notice as referred to in Annex XV A; or
(b) by means of a notice on the existence of a qualification system as referred to in Annex XIV; or
(c) by means of a contract notice as referred to in Annex XIII A, B or C. | | 32005R1564 - Second joint amendment of Classic and Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 1=U42 + 2=C35 | Article 1
Contracting entities shall, from the date of entry into force of the respective national measures transposing Directive 2004/17/EC and from 1 February 2006 at the latest, use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notices referred to in Articles 41 to 44 and 63 of that Directive, the standard forms set out in Annexes IV to IX, XII and XIII to this Regulation.
Article 2
Contracting authorities shall, from the date of entry into force of respective national measures transposing Directive 2004/18/EC and from 1 February 2006 at the latest, use, for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notices referred to in Articles 35, 36, 58, 64, 69 and 70 of that Directive, the standard forms set out in Annexes I, II, III and VIII to XIII to this Regulation. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 11.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public works contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure referred to in Article 7 (2), shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 9.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public supply contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure in the cases referred to in Article 6 (2), shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 15.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public service contract by open, restricted or, under the conditions laid down in Article 11, negotiated procedure, shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 21.1 | Article 21
1. In the case of supplies, works or service contracts, the call for competition may be made:
(a) by means of a notice drawn up in accordance with Annex XII A, B or C; or
(b) by means of a periodic indicative notice drawn up in accordance with Annex XIV; or
(c) by means of a notice on the existence of a qualification system drawn up in accordance with Annex XIII. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 12.1 | Title III
Common advertising rules
Article 12
Authorities awarding contracts who wish to award a public works contract by open or restricted procedure shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.12=W1-12.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public works contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure referred to in Article 5 (2), shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 9.1 | Title III
Common advertising rules
Article 9
1. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public supply contract by open or restricted procedure shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31988L0295 - Second amendment of Goods (1st generation) | Article 9.2=G1-9.2 | | 2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public supply contract by open, restricted, or, under the conditions laid down in Article 6 (3), by negotiated procedure within the meaning of Article 1 shall make known their intention by means of a notice. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 16.1 | Article 16
1. A call for competition may be made:
(a) by means of a notice drawn up in accordance with Annex XII A, B or C; or
(b) by means of a periodic indicative notice drawn up in accordance with Annex XIV; or
(c) by means of a notice on the existence of a qualification system drawn up in accordance with Annex XIII. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-125/03
Germany | 18-21 | S2-8
S2-15.2
S2-16.1 | 18 À l’appui de son recours, la Commission fait valoir, comme grief unique, que les marchés en question auraient dû faire l’objet d’un appel d’offres dans le Journal officiel des Communautés européennes conformément aux articles 8, 15, paragraphe 2, et 16, paragraphe 1, de la directive 92/50.
19 Le gouvernement allemand admet que les pouvoirs adjudicateurs en question auraient dû passer un appel d’offres pour leurs marchés de services dans le Journal officiel des Communautés européennes et qu’il n’a pas été procédé à cette publication.
20 Dès lors le recours introduit par la Commission est fondé. 21 Eu égard à ce qui précède, il convient de constater que, du fait que les contrats d’enlèvement d’ordures conclus par les villes de Lüdinghausen et d’Olfen ainsi que par les communes de Nordkirchen, de Senden et de Ascheberg ont été passés au mépris des règles de publicité prévues par les dispositions combinées des articles 8, 15, paragraphe 2, et 16, paragraphe 1, de la directive 92/50, la République fédérale d’Allemagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive. | C-20/01 & C-28/01
Germany | 52-55 | S2-8
S2-15.2 | 52 As regards Case C-20/01, it is not disputed that the conditions on which Directive 92/50 applies were met. As the Advocate General observes at point 65 of his Opinion, the treatment of waste water is a service within the meaning of Article 8 and Annex IA, category 16, of the directive. The construction of certain facilities was ancillary to the main purpose of the contract which the Municipality of Bockhorn entered into with EWE. The value of the contract far exceeds the threshold laid down in Article 7 of the directive.
53 Under Article 8 and Article 15(2) of Directive 92/50, the contract should consequently have been awarded in accordance with the provisions of the directive. It is established, and the German Government does not deny, that the Municipality of Bockhorn did not award the contract in that way.
54 The Federal Republic of Germany's defence on the substance refers essentially to the arguments put forward to challenge the admissibility of the action. For the reasons set out at paragraphs 29 to 43 of this judgment, those arguments must be rejected.
55 It follows that the Commission's action in Case C-20/01 is founded. | C-237/99
France | 62 | W2-1.b.2-impl
W2-7.1-impl
W2-11.2 | 62 Accordingly, it must be held that since the Val-de-Marne and Paris OPACs and SA HLM Logirel did not publish contract notices in the Official Journal of the European Communities concerning the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and 16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, in particular Article 11(2) thereof. | C-16/98
France | 81-86 | U2-21.1
U2-21.5 | 81 It must be observed that, according to Article 21(1) of the Directive, the call for competition for a contract must be made by means of a notice drawn up in accordance with Annex XII of the Directive; that Annex provides in paragraph 5 that the notice must be published in the OJEC.
82 The Commission complains, first, that, because they split the work in respect of electrification works, the French authorities failed to publish a call for competition in the OJEC for all the contracts forming part of that work, confining themselves to doing so for only six of them.
83 Second, the notices concerning those six contracts, which the French authorities sent for publication in the OJEC, did not, according to the Commission, conform to the model in Annex XII to the Directive, because the information provided in those notices was insufficient to enable several of the headings set out in the model to be filled in. That conduct constituted a further failure to fulfil obligations under Article 21(1) of the Directive.
84 As already observed at paragraph 80 of this judgment, the French authorities confined themselves to publishing a call for competition at Community level in respect of only six of the 18 contracts for electrification works for which they were required to publish such a notice. The French Republic has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) and (5) of the Directive as regards the other 12 contracts.
85 It must be held that, as the French Republic acknowledges, the notices published in the OJEC concerning the six contracts for electrification are incomplete.
86 It follows that, as regards those notices, the French Republic has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of the Directive. | C-323/96
Belgium | 31-35 | W2-11.2
W2-11.9
W1A4-12.2
W1A4-12.9 | 31 In those circumstances, the contracts put out to tender by the Vlaamse Raad fell within the scope of Directive 71/305, as amended by Directive 89/440, and Directive 93/37 and should therefore have been awarded in accordance with the rules set out therein.
32 Among those rules, Article 12(2) and (9) of Directive 71/305, as amended by Article 1(12) of Directive 89/440, provides that contracting authorities who wish to award a public works contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure referred to in Article 5(2) are to make known their intention by means of a notice published in the OJEC.
33 Similarly, Article 11(2) and (9) of Directive 93/37 requires `contracting authorities who wish to award a public works contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure referred to in Article 7(2)' to make known their intention by publishing a notice in the OJEC.
34 It follows from those provisions that the obligation to publish a notice does not exist only when the contracting authorities intend to award a public works contract by negotiated procedure referred to in Article 5(3) of Directive 71/305, as amended by Directive 89/440, or in Article 7(3) of Directive 93/37.
35 In the present case, the Belgian Government does not contest the fact that no notice was published in the OJEC, nor the fact that the conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Directive 71/305, as amended by Directive 89/440, and in Article 7(3) of Directive 93/37 for carrying out a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a notice were not satisfied. | | C-272/91 | 34 | G1A2-9.1
G1A2-9.2
G1A2-9.4 | As regards the complaint of the infringement of Article 9 of the Directive, the Italian Government does not deny that the notices in question were not sent. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-041122
Dansk Restprodukthåndtering | 1+K5 | S2-3.2.contact-impl
S2-14.1-impl
S2-15.2-impl | 1. Da indklagede som udbyder har det fulde ansvar for, at udbudsbetingelserne er klare og utvetydige, er det uden betydning, at indklagede i udbudsbetingelserne har anført, at det påhviler tilbudsgiverne at indhente supplerende oplysninger hos indklagede, såfremt udbudsdokumenterne måtte fremtræde uklare. Det fremgår utvetydigt af udbudsbekendtgørelsen af 1. oktober 2003, som blev offentliggjort i EF-Tidende, at der var tale om et offentligt udbud. Ligeledes fremgår det utvetydigt af forsiden af udbudsbetingelserne af 3. oktober 2003, der blev tilsendt de interesserede virksomheder, at ud- 1 19. budet gennemføres som et offentligt EU-udbud. Da der ved offentlige udbud gælder et forbud mod forhandling, jf. det anførte ad påstand 2, var indklagede uberettiget til at forhandle med klageren. Påstanden tages derfor ikke til følge.
.....
K5. Klagen tages ikke til følge vedrørende påstand 1 og påstand 4 - 6.
[Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet og det EU-udbudsretlige gennemsigtighedsprincip ved at afslå at forhandle med klageren på grundlag af klagerens tilbud, uagtet indklagede, selvom der var tale om et offentligt udbud, havde pligt til at forhandle med klageren, fordi det i udbudsbetingelserne var fastsat, at kontrakten ville blive indgået »efter forhandling af tilbudene«.] | N-041122
Dansk Restprodukthåndtering | 2-5+K1 | S2-3.2.contact-impl
S2-14.1-impl
S2-15.2 | 2. Grundlaget for udbud efter EU-udbudsreglerne er dels udbudsbekendtgørelsen som den er offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende, jf. Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 15, stk. 2, dels udbudsbetingelserne, og en virksomhed, som ønsker at afgive tilbud under et EU-udbud, og som ønsker med henblik herpå at gør sig bekendt med det pågældende udbud, er således nødsaget til at fremskaffe såvel udbudsbekendtgørelsen som den er offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende som udbudsbetingelserne.
3. Det fremgår utvetydigt såvel af udbudsbekendtgørelsen som den er offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende som af udbudsvilkårene vedrørende det aktuelle udbud, at der er tale om et offentligt udbud, jf. Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 1, litra d, og artikel 11, stk. 4. Som anført ad påstand 1 er udbudet gennemført som et offentligt udbud.
4. Som følge af det EU-udbudsretlige ligebehandlingsprincip var indklagede herefter efter modtagelsen af tilbudet uberettiget til at forhandle med tilbudsgiverne om indholdet af deres tilbud. Indklagede kan efter modtagelsen af tilbud alene etablere kontakt til tilbudsgiverne med henblik på en præcisering eller supplering af tilbudet, som er nødvendig for at afgøre, om tilbudet kan indgå i vurderingen, eller tilbudet skal afvises, og kun hvis dette kan ske, uden at der derved sker forskelsbehandling af tilbudsgiverne.
5. Indklagede har således handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet og det EU-udbudsretlige gennemsigtighedsprincip ved i udbudsbetingelserne til dette offentlige udbud at anføre, at kontrakt ville blive indgået efter »forhandling af tilbudene«. Påstanden tages derfor til følge.
[K1. Indklagede har handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet og det EUudbudsretlige gennemsigtighedsprincip ved i udbudsbetingelserne at anføre, at kontrakt ville blive indgået »efter forhandling af tilbudene«, uagtet der var tale om et offentligt udbud.] |
|
|
