| | 32004L0018: c3-31.s1Negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 31.s1 | Article 31
Cases justifying use of the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice
Contracting authorities may award public contracts by a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice in the following cases: | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 40.3.s1 | | 3. Contracting entities may use a procedure without prior call for competition in the following cases: | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 7.3.s1 | | 3. The contracting authorities may award their public works contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, in the following cases: | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 6.3.s1 | | 3. The contracting authorities may award their supply contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice, in the following cases: | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 11.3.s1 | | 3. Contracting authorities may award public service contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice in the following cases: | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 20.2.s1 | | 2. Contracting entities may use a procedure without prior call for competition in the following cases: | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 5.3 + 9.1.s1 | 3. Contracts awarded in the cases referred to in article 9 shall be subject to the provisions of article 10 only.
Article 9
Authorities awarding contracts may award their works contracts without applying the provisions of this directive, except those of article 10, in the following cases: | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.7=W1-5.3.s1 & 1.9=W1-9.1.s1 | 3. The contracting authorities may award their public works contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice, in the following cases:
9. Article 7, 8 and 9 are hereby repealed. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 4.3 + 6.1.s1 | 3. Contracts awarded in the cases referred to in article 6 shall be subject to the provisions of article 7 only.
Article 6
1. Contracting authorities may award their supply contracts without applying the procedures referred to in article 4 (1) and (2) in the following cases: | | 31988L0295 - Second amendment of Goods (1st generation) | Article 5=G1-4.3 + 7.4.a=G1-6.4.s1 | Article 5
Article 4 is deleted.
4. The contracting authorities may award their supply contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice in the following cases: | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 15.2.s1 | | 2. Contracting entities may use a procedure without prior call for competition in the following cases: |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-481/06
Greece | 11-17 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7-impl
G2-6.3
ECT-226 | 11 La Commission fait valoir, d’une part, que la réglementation nationale litigieuse est incompatible avec l’article 6, paragraphe 3, de la directive 93/36. D’autre part, elle soutient que cette réglementation viole les principes fondamentaux du traité CE lesquels continuent de s’appliquer même lorsque la valeur estimée d’un marché est inférieure au seuil d’application de la directive 93/36, en particulier l’obligation d’assurer une concurrence réelle et équitable.
12 En premier lieu, il convient de constater que la réglementation nationale litigieuse autorise les pouvoirs adjudicateurs à recourir directement à la procédure négociée en ce qui concerne l’acquisition de catégories entières de produits médicaux sans s’assurer que les exigences établies par l’article 6, paragraphe 3, de la directive 93/36 sont remplies. La République hellénique ne conteste pas que cette réglementation constitue une dérogation à l’obligation d’organiser une procédure d’adjudication dans un cas non visé par ladite disposition.
13 En second lieu, il ressort du silence de la République hellénique qu’elle ne conteste pas que la réglementation nationale litigieuse n’est pas conforme aux obligations découlant des règles fondamentales et des principes généraux du traité, en particulier l’égalité de traitement et l’obligation de transparence.
14 La République hellénique conclut néanmoins au rejet du recours, en faisant valoir que, dans le cadre de la réforme législative relative aux fournitures dans le domaine de la santé, un projet de loi incluant un article relatif à l’abrogation de l’article 7, paragraphe 2, de la loi 2955 va être déposé. Elle précise que le retard est dû aux modifications importantes apportées par ledit projet de loi, qui vise à créer un nouvel environnement juridique dans le domaine très sensible de la santé, et qui garantira tant l’achèvement sans obstacle des procédures de passation de marchés que l’approvisionnement régulier des hôpitaux en matériel indispensable de technique médicale.
15 À cet égard, il suffit de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, l’existence d’un manquement doit être appréciée en fonction de la situation de l’État membre telle qu’elle se présentait au terme du délai fixé dans l’avis motivé (arrêts du 2 juin 2005, Commission/Luxembourg, C-266/03, Rec. p. I-4805, point 36, et du 26 octobre 2006, Commission/Autriche, C-102/06, non publié au Recueil, point 8).
16 Or, la disposition litigieuse étant restée en vigueur à l’expiration du délai imparti dans l’avis motivé, le recours introduit par la Commission doit être considéré comme fondé.
17 Par conséquent, il convient de constater que, en maintenant en vigueur l’article 7, paragraphe 2, de la loi 2955 ainsi que les dispositions d’exécution des arrêtés ministériels conjoints DY6a/oik.38611 et DY6a/oik.38609 [sic], du 12 avril 2005, la République hellénique a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l’article 6, paragraphe 3, de la directive 93/36 ainsi que des principes généraux du traité, en particulier l’égalité de traitement et l’obligation de transparence. | C-340/04
Carbotermo | 41-42 | G2-6.2
G2-6.3 | 41. Article 6 of Directive 93/36 requires contracting authorities who conclude public procurement contracts to use the open procedure or the restricted procedure unless the contract falls within one of the exceptions listed exhaustively in Article 6(2) and (3). The order for reference does not indicate that the public supply contract at issue in the main proceedings falls within one of those exceptions.
42. It follows that Directive 93/36 does not allow for the direct award of a public procurement contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings. | C-84/03
Spain | 56-59 | G2-6.2.p1
G2-6.3.s1
W2-7.2.s1
W2-7.3.s1 | 56. As regards the award of supply contracts for uniform goods, referred to in Article 182(g) of the codified law, the negotiated procedure may be used only in the cases exhaustively listed in Art icle 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36. Article 6(4) states, moreover, that in all other cases, the contracting authorities shall award their supply contracts by the open procedure or by the restricted procedure'.
57. The provision at issue, introduced by the Spanish legislature, does not correspond either to the case mentioned in Article 6(2) of Directive 93/36 or to one of the five situations listed in Article 6(3) in which the use of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice is expressly permitted. It must be stated, moreover, that the concept of framework agreement' does not come within the scope of those exceptions.
58. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that the provisions which authorise derogations from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the Treaty in the field of public supply contracts must be strictly interpreted (judgment in Case C71/92 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-5923, paragraph 36). It is, therefore, for the Member States to show that their legislation constitutes a faithful transposition of the cases expressly provided for by the directive. In the present case, such evidence has not been provided by the Spanish Government.
59. Accordingly, to the extent that it authorises use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice for the procedures involving goods whose uniformity has been held to be necessary for their common use by the public authorities, provided that the choice of the type of goods has been made in advance, pursuant to a call for tenders, the law at issue constitutes an incorrect transposition of Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36. | C-26/03
Stadt Halle | 45-46 | S2-1.c
S2-11.3 | 45. The obligation to apply the Community rules in such a case is confirmed by the fact that in Article 1(c) of Directive 92/50 the term service provider', that is, a tenderer for the purposes of the application of that directive, also includes a public body, which offers services' (see Case C94/99 ARGE [2000] ECR I11037, paragraph 28).
46. Any exception to the application of that obligation must consequently be interpreted strictly. Thus the Court has held, concerning recourse to a negotiated procedure without the prior publication of a contract notice, that Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50, which provides for such a procedure, must, as a derogation from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the EC Treaty in relation to public service contracts, be interpreted strictly and that the burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the derogation lies on the person seeking to rely on those circumstances (Joined Cases C20/01 and C28/01 Commission v Germany [2003] ECR I3609, paragraph 58). |
|
|
