| | 32004L0018: c3-18Service contracts awarded on the basis of an exclusive right    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 18 | Article 18
Service contracts awarded on the basis of an exclusive right
This Directive shall not apply to public service contracts awarded by a contracting authority to another contracting authority or to an association of contracting authorities on the basis of an exclusive right which they enjoy pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the Treaty. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 25 | Article 25
Service contracts awarded on the basis of an exclusive right
This Directive shall not apply to service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) or to an association of contracting authorities on the basis of an exclusive right which they enjoy pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the Treaty. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 6 | Article 6
This Directive shall not apply to public service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1 (b) on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the Treaty. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 11 | Article 11
This Directive shall not apply to service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1 (b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (12) on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the EEC Treaty.
(12) OJ No L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-323/07
Termoraggi | 23-25 | S2-6 | 23 Dans la négative, il conviendrait d’examiner si les autres conditions d’applicabilité de ces directives sont réunies. S’agissant de la directive 92/50, il conviendrait d’examiner si les conditions posées à son article 6 sont satisfaites. Une question analogue ne se poserait pas à l’égard de la directive 93/36, celle-ci ne contenant pas de disposition comparable à l’article 6 de la directive 92/50 (voir arrêt Teckal, précité, point 44).
24 Ledit article 6 exclut du champ d’application de la directive 92/50 les marchés publics de services attribués à une entité qui est elle-même un pouvoir adjudicateur sur la base d’un droit exclusif dont elle bénéficie en vertu de dispositions législatives, réglementaires ou administratives publiées, à condition que ces dispositions soient compatibles avec le traité.
25 Il s’ensuit que cette disposition ne trouve à s’appliquer que s’il existe des dispositions législatives, réglementaires ou administratives publiées qui confèrent à l’attributaire un droit exclusif portant sur l’objet du marché attribué. | C-220/06
Asociacion Profesional de Empresas | 64-69 | S2-6 | 64. However, the existence of an exclusive right may justify non-application of Directive 92/50 given that, pursuant to Article 6 of that directive, the Directive shall not apply to public service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1 (b) on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the Treaty'.
65. Without there being any need to examine whether Correos fulfils the first of those three conditions set out in Article 6 - concerning the status of Correos as a contracting authority -, and assuming that Correos enjoys, pursuant to Article 58 of Law 14/2000, an exclusive right to provide public authorities with postal services connected with its company objects, it is enough to hold that, in any event, the third of those conditions is not met, namely that the provision granting the exclusive right must be compatible with the Treaty.
66. That national provision - assuming that it does confer on the national provider of the universal postal service the exclusive right to provide to public authorities the postal services that, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, are not reserved, and to which this analysis is limited - is incompatible with the purpose of that directive.
67. As is apparent from the case-law of the Court, Member States do not have the option of extending the services reserved for the universal postal service provider pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, as such extension goes against the purpose of the Directive, which, according to recital 8, aims to establish gradual and controlled liberalisation in the postal sector (Case C240/02 Asempre and Asociacion Nacional de Empresas de Externalizacion y Gestion de Envíos y Pequeña Paquetería [2004] ECR I2461, paragraph 24).
68. This finding applies not only to reserving a service that is horizontal, in other words reserving a certain type of postal service as such, but, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Article 7 of Directive 97/67, also applies to reserving a service which is vertical and which concerns, as is the case in the main proceedings, the exclusive provision of postal services to certain customers. As the Commission of the European Communities observed, applying the Spanish rules in issue in the main proceedings would mean that, in practice, all postal services needed by a Spanish public body could potentially be supplied by Correos, to the exclusion of all other postal operators, which would clearly be contrary to the purpose of Directive 97/67.
69. Therefore, the answer to the question referred must be that Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies:
- reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50 and
- constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50 concluded in writing for pecuniary interest,
which are matters for the national court to establish. | C-220/05
Auroux | 58-62 | C3-11
S2-6
W2-na | 58. By its third question, the national court asks, essentially, whether, in order to conclude an agreement such as that in the main proceedings, a contracting authority is exempt from using the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down by the Directive on the ground that, in accordance with national law, that agreement may be concluded only with certain legal persons which themselves have the capacity of contracting authority and which will be obliged in turn to apply those procedures in order to award any subsequent contracts.
59. It must be observed, as a preliminary point, that the only permitted exceptions to the application of the Directive are those which are expressly mentioned in it (see, by analogy, Case C-107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I-8121, paragraph 43, and Case C340/04 Carbotermo and Consorzio Alisei [2006] ECR I-4137, paragraph 45).
60. The Directive does not contain any provision comparable to that in Article 6 of Directive 92/50, which excludes from its scope public contracts awarded, under certain conditions, to contracting authorities (see, by analogy, Teckal , paragraph 44, and Carbotermo and Consorzio Alisei , paragraph 46).
61. It must be observed that Article 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) provides an exception as regards contracting authorities which purchase, inter alia, works from a central purchasing body, as defined in Article 1(10) of that directive. However, that provision is not applicable ratione temporis to the facts in the main proceedings.
62. It follows that a contracting authority is not exempt from using the procedures for the award of public works contracts provided for by the Directive, on the ground that it plans to conclude the contract concerned with a second contracting authority (see, by analogy, Teckal , paragraph 51; Case C-94/99 ARGE [2000] ECR I-11037, paragraph 40; and Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau [2005] ECR I-1, paragraph 47). Furthermore, that finding does not affect the obligation on the latter contracting authority to apply in its turn the tendering procedures laid down in the Directive (see, by analogy, Teckal , paragraph 45). | C-340/04
Carbotermo | 46 | S2-6 | 46. Directive 93/36 does not contain any provision comparable to Article 6 of Directive 92/50 , which excludes from its scope of application public contracts awarded, under certain conditions, to contracting authorities (Teckal , paragraph 44). | C-264/03
France | 43 | S2-6 | 43. The persons which may be appointed to fulfil the responsibilities of the delegated project contractor are listed in Article 4 of Law No 85704. It is appropriate to observe that some of those persons may, themselves, be contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50. While Article 6 of that directive excludes from its scope public service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law, regulation or administrative provision, the fact remains that those conditions are not satisfied in the circumstances of this case. | C-264/03
France | 49-51 | S2-6 | 49. Finally, it must be determined whether the agency agreement of delegated project contracting effects a transfer of official authority, as the French Government argues. The examination of that question presupposes that the fulfilment of the responsibilities in question involves, on the part of the contracting authority, direct participation in the exercise of official authority.
50. In that regard, the French Government has not asserted the existence of circumstances in which the contracting authority is responsible for a structure for the inhouse' management of a public service within the meaning of the Court's caselaw (see, to that effect, Case C107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I8121, paragraph 50, and Coname , paragraph 26). Indeed, there is no suggestion that the principal exercises over the agent a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and that the agent carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling public authority or authorities (see, to that effect, Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau [2005] ECR I1, paragraph 49).
51. As regards tasks of administrative and technical assistance, such as defining the administrative and technical terms according to which the project will be worked up and executed, they seem to be provisions of services within the meaning of Article 8 of, and Annex IA to, Directive 92/50 and the agent does not appear to participate in the exercise of official authority. | C-107/98
Teckal | 41-45 | G2-na
S2-6 | 41 In order to determine whether the fact that a local authority entrusts the supply of products to a consortium in which it has a holding must give rise to a tendering procedure as provided for under Directive 93/36, it is necessary to consider whether the assignment of that task constitutes a public supply contract.
42 If that is the case, and if the estimated amount of the contract, without value added tax, is equal to or greater than ECU 200 000, Directive 93/36 will apply. Whether the supplier is or is not a contracting authority is not conclusive in this regard.
43 It should be pointed out that the only permitted exceptions to the application of Directive 93/36 are those which are exhaustively and expressly mentioned therein (see, with reference to Directive 77/62, Case C-71/92 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-5923, paragraph 10).
44 Directive 93/36 does not contain any provision comparable to Article 6 of Directive 92/50, which excludes from its scope public contracts awarded, under certain conditions, to contracting authorities.
45 It should also be noted that this finding does not affect the obligation on those contracting authorities to apply in turn the tendering procedures laid down in Directive 93/36. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-981021
Farum Industrirenovation | 2-4 | S2-1.a.p2&i
S2-1.c.s1-impl
S2-6-impl
S2-na [C3-17] | 2. Uanset »R98« efter dets tilblivelseshistorie utvivlsomt fik tillagt rettigheder af koncessionslignende karakter, og at disse kun kunne bringes til ophør ved udløb, opsigelse, eller ved ekspropriation, finder Klagenævnet, at det retlige grundlag for selskabets virke i hvert fald fra den 1. januar 1994 er så afgørende ændret, at de ydelser, selskabet præsterer er omfattet af Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet. Allerede som følge heraf burde indklagede have udbudt ydelserne afhentning og bortskaffelse af dagrenovation fra husholdninger og husholdningslignende affald fra erhvervsvirksomheder i EU–udbud.
3. For så vidt angår transport af erhvervsaffald og modtagelse af samme dog bortset fra I/S Amagerforbrændingen og I/S Vestforbrændingen, finder Klagenævnet, at disse ydelser er omfattet af Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet. Herved bemærkes, at Klagenævnet ikke finder, at der foreligger oplysninger, der kan føre til andet resultat.
4. Klagenævnet finder herefter, at indklagede ved at undlade udbud på de foran anførte områder har overtrådt Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet.
[Sagsfremstilingen: Erhvervsaffaldsregulativet giver i flere tilfælde ikke fri konkurrence ..... Brændbart affald må kun modtages af I/S Amagerforbrændingen og I/S Vestforbrændingen.
.....
Såfremt Klagenævnet ikke lægger til grund, at anvendelsen af I/S Vestforbrænding og I/S Amagerforbrænding ved bortskaffelsen af andet brændbart affald fra Københavns Kommune er lovlig, allerede fordi dette sker i henhold til en koncession og ikke ud fra en tjenesteydelseskontrakt, må overladelsen af denne affaldsbortskaffelse til de to interessentskaber anses for lovlig i medfør af eneretsreglen i Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 6.
.....
Sagsfremstillingen: Af forhandlingsprotokollen for Borgerrepræsentationen af 2. december 1993 fremgår det bl.a.:
»788/93. Fra magistraten var modtaget følgende skrivelse af 22. november 1993 om ændring af vedtægter for Renholdningsselskabet af 1898 (R98), herunder en udskillelse af R98´s ikke–koncessionerede aktiviteter i et særskilt holdingaktieselskab R98 Renoflex A/S, hvor kommunen tilbydes en aktiepost på 49 pct. af aktiekapitalen ..... Det fremgår af referatet, at de i arbejdsgruppen tilvejebragte oplysninger og antagne konklusioner blev forelagt Borgerrepræsentationen, der herefter tiltrådte Magistratens indstilling.] |
|
|
