| | ECT-28Free movement of goods    
| ECT (2003) | Article 28 | | Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-6/05
Medipac-Kazantzidis | 56-62 | ECT-EquTran | 56. By its third question, the national court asks the Court how the safeguard measures provided for by Directive 93/42 must be implemented by a contracting authority in the context of an ongoing tendering procedure. It asks in particular whether the contracting authority must await the end of the safeguard procedure and whether it is bound by the outcome of that procedure.
57. As evidenced by the answer given to the first and second questions, a contracting authority is entitled to reject a tender for medical devices bearing the CE marking, on grounds of technical inadequacy, only in the context of the safeguard procedure provided for by Directive 93/42.
58. More specifically, a contracting authority's power to reject the tender for medical devices bearing the CE marking on grounds of technical inadequacy is subject to the outcome of the safeguard procedure, namely the Commission's decision establishing, in accordance with Article 8(2) of that directive, that the adoption of measures prohibiting the placing on the market or putting into service of the devices is justified.
59. It follows that a contracting authority, once it has decided to refer the matter to the competent national authority, is required to suspend the award procedure so as to set in motion the safeguard procedure provided for by Directive 93/42 and to await the end of the latter procedure. The Commission's decision is binding on the contracting authority. If the safeguard procedure were to lead to a finding that those materials do not comply with the requirements of that directive, the measures of general application taken by the Member State would entail the exclusion of those products from the award procedure which was suspended.
60. The suspension of a tendering procedure for the supply of medical devices may, of course, lead to delays liable to give rise to problems in running a hospital such as Venizelio-Pananio. However, as pointed out by the Advocate General in point 118 of her Opinion and pursuant to Article 14b of Directive 93/42, the objective of the protection of public health constitutes an overriding public-interest requirement entitling Member States to derogate from the principle of the free movement of goods provided that the measures taken comply with the principle of proportionality (see Case 120/78 ReweZentral [1979] ECR 649 (Cassis de Dijon '), paragraph 8; Case C270/02 Commission v Italy [2004] ECR I-1559, paragraphs 21 and 22; and Joined Cases C158/04 and C159/04 Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos and Carrefour-Marinopoulos [2006] ECR I-8135, paragraphs 20 to 23).
61. Consequently, in a situation of urgency, a hospital such as Venizelio-Pananio is entitled to take all interim measures required to enable it to procure the medical devices necessary for its operation. In such cases, however, it must be able to show that there is a situation of urgency justifying such a derogation from the principle of free movement of goods and demonstrate that the measures taken are proportionate.
62. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question must be that a contracting authority, which has referred a matter to the competent national authority with a view to setting in motion the safeguard procedure provided for by Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices bearing the CE marking, is required to suspend the tendering procedure until the end of that safeguard procedure, the outcome of that procedure being binding on the contracting authority. If the implementation of such a safeguard procedure gives rise to delays liable to jeopardise the operation of a public hospital and thereby public health, the contracting authority is entitled to take all interim measures required to enable it to procure the materials necessary for the smooth running of that hospital, subject to compliance with the principle of proportionality. | C-92/00
Hospital | 42-43 | S2-3.2-impl
ECT-28
ECT-43
ECT-49 | 42 However, even though, apart from the duty to notify the reasons for the withdrawal of the invitation to tender, Directive 92/50 contains no specific provision concerning the substantive or formal conditions for that decision, the fact remains that the latter is still subject to fundamental rules of Community law, and in particular to the principles laid down by the EC Treaty on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
43 In that regard, the Court has consistently held that the purpose of coordinating at Community level the procedures for the award of public contracts is to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and goods and therefore to protect the interests of traders established in a Member State who wish to offer goods or services to contracting authorities established in another Member State (see, inter alia, Case C-380/98 University of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035, paragraph 16; Case C-19/00 SIAC Construction [2001] ECR I-7725, paragraph 32).
44 Directive 92/50 pursues just such an objective. As the 20th recital in its preamble shows, it is designed to eliminate practices that restrict competition in general, and participation in contracts by other Member States' nationals in particular, by improving the access of service providers to procedures for the award of contracts.
45 The Court's case-law also demonstrates that the principle of equal treatment, which underlies the directives on procedures for the award of public contracts, implies in particular an obligation of transparency in order to enable verification that it has been complied with (see, to that effect, Case C-275/98 Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri [1999] ECR I-8291, paragraph 31; Case C-324/98 Telaustria and Telefonadress v Telekom Austria [2000] ECR I-10745, paragraph 61).
46 In that respect, it should be noted that the duty to notify reasons for a decision to withdraw an invitation to tender, laid down by Article 12(2) of Directive 92/50, is dictated precisely by concern to ensure a minimum level of transparency in the contract-awarding procedures to which that directive applies and hence compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
47 It follows that, even though Directive 92/50 does not specifically govern the detailed procedures for withdrawing an invitation to tender for a public service contract, the contracting authorities are nevertheless required, when adopting such a decision, to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty in general, and the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality, in particular (see, by way of analogy, concerning the conclusion of public service concessions, Telaustria and Telefonadress, paragraph 60). | C-59/00-S
Vestergaard | 22-26 | ECT-28 [ex 30] | 22 In the light of that finding, it must be observed, next, that according to the case-law on public supply contracts the failure to add the words or equivalent after the designation in the contract documents of a particular product may not only deter economic operators using systems similar to that product from taking part in the tendering procedure, but may also impede the flow of imports in intra-Community trade, contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty, by reserving the contract exclusively to suppliers intending to use the product specifically indicated (see, to that effect, Commission v Netherlands, paragraph 27).
23 Moreover, in paragraph 22 of Commission v Ireland, which concerned a public works contract which did not fall within the scope of Directive 71/305, the Court considered, with reference to the conformity with Article 30 of the Treaty of a clause requiring asbestos cement pressure pipes to be certified as complying with Irish standard 188:1975, that by incorporating in the notice in question the words or equivalent after the reference to the Irish standard, the Irish authorities could have verified compliance with the technical conditions without from the outset restricting the contract solely to tenderers proposing to utilise Irish materials.
24 It is therefore clear from the case-law that, notwithstanding the fact that a public works contract does not exceed the threshold laid down in Directive 93/37 and does not thus fall within its scope, Article 30 of the Treaty precludes a contracting authority from including in the contract documents for that contract a clause requiring the use in carrying out the contract of a product of a specified make, without adding the words or equivalent.
25 In the light of the above considerations, there is no need to rule on the possible incompatibility of a clause such as that at issue in the main proceedings with Article 6 of the Treaty.
26 In those circumstances, the answer to the national court's questions must be that Article 30 of the Treaty precludes a contracting authority from including in the contract documents for a public works contract which does not exceed the threshold laid down in Directive 93/37 a clause requiring the use in carrying out the contract of a product of a specified make, where that clause does not include the words or equivalent. | C-19/00
SIAC | 32 | ECT-28
ECT-30 | 32 The Court has held in this regard that the purpose of coordinating at Community level the procedures for the award of public contracts is to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and goods and therefore to protect the interests of traders established in a Member State who wish to offer goods or services to contracting authorities established in another Member State (see, inter alia, Case C-380/98 University of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035, paragraph 16). | C-380/98
University of Cambridge | 16 | ECT-28 [ex 30]
ECT-49 [ex 59] | 16 It should be borne in mind at the outset that, as far as the purpose of Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37 is concerned, the Court has held that the purpose of coordinating at Community level the procedures for the award of public contracts is to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and goods and therefore to protect the interests of traders established in a Member State who wish to offer goods or services to contracting authorities established in another Member State (see, to that effect, Case C-360/96 Gemeente Arnhem, Gemeente Rheden v BFI Holding [1998] ECR I-6821, paragraph 41). | C-360/96
Gemeente Arnhem | 41 | ECT-28 [ex 30]
ECT-49 [ex 59] | 41 Next, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of coordinating at Community level the procedures for the award of public service contracts is to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and therefore to protect the interests of economic operators established in a Member State who wish to offer goods or services to contracting authorities in another Member State. | 45/87
Ireland | 14-18 | ECT-28 [ex 30]
ECT-49 [ex 59]
ECT-90 [ex 95] | 14 The Irish Government points out that the contract at issue relates not to the sale of goods but to the performance of work, and the clauses relating to the materials to be used are completely subsidiary . Contracts concerned with the performance of work fall under the Treaty provisions relating to the free supply of services, without prejudice to any harmonization measures which might be taken under Article 100. Consequently, Article 30 cannot apply to a contract for works.
15 In that connection, the Irish Government cites the case-law of the Court and, in particular, the judgment of 22 March 1977 in Case 74/76 Iannelli & Volpi v Meroni (( 1977 )) ECR 557, according to which the field of application of Article 30 does not include obstacles to trade covered by other specific provisions of the Treaty.
16 That argument cannot be accepted. Article 30 envisages the elimination of all measures of the Member States which impede imports in intra-Community trade, whether the measures bear directly on the movement of imported goods or have the effect of indirectly impeding the marketing of goods from other Member States. The fact that some of those barriers must be considered in the light of specific provisions of the Treaty, such as the provisions of Article 95 relating to fiscal discrimination, in no way detracts from the general character of the prohibitions laid down by Article 30.
17 The provisions on the freedom to supply services invoked by the Irish Government, on the other hand, are not concerned with the movement of goods but the freedom to perform activities and have them carried out; they do not lay down any specific rule relating to particular barriers to the free movement of goods. Consequently, the fact that a public works contract relates to the provision of services cannot remove a clause in an invitation to tender restricting the materials that may be used from the scope of the prohibitions set out in Article 30.
18 Consequently, it must be considered whether the inclusion of Clause 4.29 in the invitation to tender and in the tender specifications was liable to impede imports of pipes into Ireland. | 45/87
Ireland | 19-27 | ECT-28 [ex 30] | 19 In that connection, it must first be pointed out that the inclusion of such a clause in an invitation to tender may cause economic operators who produce or utilize pipes equivalent to pipes certified as complying with Irish standards to refrain from tendering.
20 It further appears from the documents in the case that only one undertaking has been certified by the IIRS to IS 188:1975 to apply the Irish Standard Mark to pipes of the type required for the purposes of the public works contract at issue. That undertaking is located in Ireland . Consequently, the inclusion of Clause 4.29 had the effect of restricting the supply of the pipes needed for the Dundalk scheme to Irish manufacturers alone.
21 The Irish Government maintains that it is necessary to specify the standards to which materials must be manufactured, particularly in a case such as this where the pipes utilized must suit the existing network . Compliance with another standard, even an international standard such as ISO 160:1980, would not suffice to eliminate certain technical difficulties.
22 That technical argument cannot be accepted. The Commission' s complaint does not relate to compliance with technical requirements but to the refusal of the Irish authorities to verify whether those requirements are satisfied where the manufacturer of the materials has not been certified by the IIRS to IS 188. By incorporating in the notice in question the words "or equivalent" after the reference to the Irish standard, as provided for by Directive 71/305 where it is applicable, the Irish authorities could have verified compliance with the technical conditions without from the outset restricting the contract only to tenderers proposing to utilize Irish materials.
23 The Irish Government further objects that in any event the pipes manufactured by the Spanish undertaking in question whose use was provided for in the rejected tender did not meet the technical requirements, but that argument, too, is irrelevant as regards the compatibility with the Treaty of the inclusion of a clause like Clause 4.29 in an invitation to tender.
24 The Irish Government further maintains that protection of public health justifies the requirement of compliance with the Irish standard in so far as that standard guarantees that there is no contact between the water and the asbestos fibres in the cement pipes, which would adversely affect the quality of the drinking water.
25 That argument must be rejected. As the Commission has rightly pointed out, the coating of the pipes, both internally and externally, was the subject of a separate requirement in the invitation to tender . The Irish Government has not shown why compliance with that requirement would not be such as to ensure that there is no contact between the water and the asbestos fibres, which it considers to be essential for reasons of public health.
26 The Irish Government has not put forward any other argument to refute the conclusions of the Commission and the Spanish Government and those conclusions must consequently be upheld.
27 It must therefore be held that by allowing the inclusion in the contract specification for tender for a public works contract of a clause stipulating that the asbestos cement pressure pipes must be certified as complying with Irish Standard 188:1975 in accordance with the Irish Standard Mark Licensing Scheme of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. | 45/87-R2
Ireland | 17 | W1-2-impl
ECT-28 [ex 30]
ECT-243 [ex 186] | 17 In the written observations submitted by it in these proceedings for interim measures, the defendant argues that article 30 of the EEC treaty is not applicable since there is no barrier to trade or, in any event, no barrier to trade as a result of a commercial provision or other measure adopted by Ireland. It refers to the judgment of the court of 22 march 1977 (iannelli & volpi spa v meroni ((1977)) ecr 577) in paragraph 9 of which the court stated that the field of application of article 30 of the EEC treaty "does not include obstacles to trade covered by other provisions of the treaty ". It points out that, in any event, any barrier to trade in this field would be covered by other provisions of community law, namely council directive 71/305/EEC adopted pursuant to article 57 (2 ) and articles 66 and 100 of the EEC treaty, and is thus excluded from the scope of article 30 of the treaty. The proper course for the commission to take in order to put an end to the barriers to trade resulting from disparity between national standards is to propose measures of harmonization under article 100 of the EEC treaty rather than to apply article 30. | 45/87-R2
Ireland | 20-24 | ECT-28 [ex 30]
ECT-243 [ex 186] | 20 The next step is to examine whether clause 4.29 of the specifications may amount to a barrier to trade and whether such a barrier is imputable to a measure adopted by Ireland.
21 Although it would seem normal that in a public works contract such as that at issue the materials to be used may be required to comply with a certain technical standard, even a national standard, in order to ensure that they are appropriate and safe, such a technical standard cannot, without creating prima facie a barrier to trade which is contrary to article 30 of the EEC treaty, have the effect of excluding, without so much as an examination, any tender based on another technical standard recognized in another member state as providing equivalent guarantees of safety, performance and reliability
22 In this case it should be observed that the automatic effect of clause 4.29 of the specifications, by itself and without any other justification, is to exclude any tender based on the use of any types of pipes other than those certified to comply with is 188, that is to say those manufactured by the only undertaking certified to that standard, tegral pipes ltd, Ireland, although there are a number of features in the documents before the court that suggest that the possibility cannot necessary be ruled out that equivalent technical standards exist in other member states.
23 Since that clause was inserted in the specifications by Dundalk urban district council, a body subject to the authority of the minister for the environment and for whose acts Ireland is responsible, the barrier to intra-community trade to which it prima facie gives rise is imputable to Ireland.
24 In the light of the foregoing it must be considered that the commission has indeed raised a material argument which establishes a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-080331
Cowi | 1-3+K1 | C3-2
ECT-28-impl | Ad påstand 1
1. Forud for sin beslutning om at udbyde indkøbet af en digital højdemodel orienterede indklagede sig i markedet for sådanne modeller. Det kan lægges til grund, at kravene til tidsfrister og levering i udbudsmaterialet blev opstillet på grundlag af denne orientering, der måtte give det indtryk, at de virksomheder, der producerede digitale højdemodeller af Danmark, ville være langt i arbejdet hermed ved udgangen af 2006.
2. De i udbuddet fastsatte betingelser for levering af højdemodellen må derfor anses for gjort under hensyn til en forventning om, at markedet for højdemodeller af Danmark ville kunne levere i overensstemmelse hermed og ikke for at udelukke udenlandske producenter. Da der ikke har påhvilet indklagede en pligt til forud for udbuddet eller i forbindelse hermed at sikre et marked af en vis størrelse, herunder at udenlandske producenter kunne komme ind på markedet, har indklagede ikke tilsidesat det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip på den i påstanden beskrevne måde.
3. Påstanden tages derfor ikke til følge.
.....
K1. Klagen tages ikke til følge.
[Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med EFtraktatens principper om ligebehandling samt reglerne om ligebehandling i Udbudsdirektivet, ved i udbudsmaterialet at have opstillet en række betingelser, der begrænser de mulige tilbudsgivere til virksomheder, der allerede er aktive på det danske marked.] | N-070918
P. Kortegaards Planteskole | 9-12+K1 | ECT-28
ECT-30 | 9. Kravet om, at højstammede træer skal være af dansk herkomst, er begrundet i ønsket om en bestemt kvalitet træer.
10. Det er ikke ualmindeligt, at der ved udbud af vareindkøbsaftaler om planter som et tildelingskriterium anvendes »proveniens«. Det vil ofte være velbegrundet, fordi planter nu engang vokser bedst under vante jordbunds- og klimaforhold. At inddragelse af det tilbudtes proveniens er velbegrundet, fører imidlertid ikke til, at der lovligt kan stilles nationalitetskrav til det tilbudte. Fx vil planter fra danske nærområder eller fra andre områder med samme jordbunds- og klimaforhold kunne opfylde udbudsbetingelserne.
11. Kravet om, at højstammede træer skal være af dansk herkomst, er en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som en som kvantitativ indførselsrestriktion og derfor i direkte modstrid med traktatens artikel 28. Der ses ikke at foreligge forhold, der medfører, at kravet om anvendelse af danske træer falder ind under artikel 30 og derfor ikke er traktatstridigt.
12. Spørgsmålet skal derfor besvares med, at indklagede har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens bestemmelser om varernes frie bevægelighed ved i rettelsesblad 1 at fastsætte, at højstammede træer skal være af dansk herkomst.
Herefter bestemmes:
K1. Indklagede har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens bestemmelser om varernes frie bevægelighed ved i rettelsesblad 1 at fastsætte, at højstammede træer skal være af dansk herkomst. | N-070903
SP Medical | 9+K4 | C3-2-impl
C3-2.noncom-impl
C3-44.1-impl
ECT-28-impl
ECT-49-impl | Ad påstand 4
9. Kravet om, at virksomhedernes medarbejdere skal være lokaliseret geografisk tæt på den ordregivende myndighed har i den her omhandlede situation, der angår leverancer af nummerplader, hvor der bl.a. stilles krav om eksistensen af et sikkerhedslager, kun ringe praktisk betydning [No consideration of the possible discriminatory impact of this requirement in itself, nor on the mix with selection criteria, as ruled on previously in N-070810], i modsætning til f.eks. ydelser, der fordrer personers fremmøde inden en vis frist. UTSCH’s medarbejdere skønnes således lokaliseret tæt nok på indklagede, og klagen tages derfor ikke til følge.
......
K4. Klagen tages ikke til følge vedrørende påstand 1-7 og 9-10.
[Påstand 4 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved ikke at afvise anmodningen fra Utsch AG om prækvalifikation, uanset denne virksomhed ikke opfylder udbudsbekendtgørelsens pkt. III. 2.3 om at vedlægge CV på medarbejdere, »lokaliseret tæt på ordregivende myndighed«, idet virksomheden havde vedlagt CV på medarbejdere fra Siegen, Kreuztal, Freudenber, Bad Laasphe, Herdorf, Kirchen og Kirchhundem i Tyskland. ] | N-070416
STB Byg | 13-14+K2-4 | ECT-28 | Ad påstand 6 og 7
13. Det lægges til grund, at indklagede i arbejdsbeskrivelsen for tømrerarbejdet foreskrev anvendelse af bestemte i vidt omfang nøje beskrevne produkter, herunder ved angivelse af producent og i 2 tilfælde ved oplysning om producentens telefonnummer. Indklagedes generelle oplysninger vedrørende materialer og produkter, hvorefter anderledes produkter kunne anvendes under forudsætning af, at tilbudsgiverne på forlangende dokumenterede ligeværdighed med projektets produktangivelser, og hvorefter dokumentation for ligeværdighed skulle foretages af anerkendt, uvildig prøvningsanstalt, findes reelt at udelukke anvendelse af andre produkter end de, der er anført i arbejdsbeskrivelsen. Indklagede findes herved at have overtrådt EFtraktatens artikel 28 og det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip. Klagenævnet tager derfor disse påstande til følge.
Ad påstand 8
14. Ved at kræve, at glas og termoruder kun måtte levere fra fabrik tilsluttet Glasindustriens Samarbejdsorganisation, findes indklagede at have udelukket, at der blev leveret glas fra andre glasproducenter, og således har indklagede handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28 og det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip. Klagenævnet tager derfor denne påstand til følge.
.....
K2. Ad påstand 6 Indklagede har tilsidesat EF-traktatens artikel 28 og det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip ved i licitationsbetingelserne punkt 4 til Arbejdsbeskrivelse for tømrerentreprisen, Bygningsdelsbeskrivelse, at have anført følgende:
»(31).2.001 Låsesystem Nyt låsesystem som Ruko, med cylindre inkl. alt tilbehør.«
»(31).4.003 Døre og vinduer – aluminium/træ Dør profilsystem: Nor-Dan system ND92 F, facade rammedør. Nor-Dan system ND92 T, terrasse rammedør. Vindues profilsystem: Nor-Dan system ND92 1-GR, dreje/kip vindue Nor-Dan system ND92 HG, tophængt vindue Nor-Dan system ND92 F, fast vindue«.
»(31).4.004 Dør – stål (Hanssen) Hanssen Door model JB.«.
»(31).4.005 Glas – persiennerude (Hagen) Persiennerude: Hagen A/S, tlf. 96 20 05 04. Model – 61 med hæve/sænke – samt vippefunktion.«.
»(32).4.004 Vinduesplade – komposit Vinduesplade: 30 mm kompositsten, Christobal (Brdr. Kofoed A/S, tlf. 87 41 14 14)«,
selvom indklagede kunne have specificeret kravene til de omhandlede bygningsdele sprogligt uden henvisning til bestemte fabrikater.
K3. Ad påstand 7 Indklagede har udelukket levering af andre produkter end de i licitationsbetingelserne navngivne materialer og færdigvarer i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28 og det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip ved i licitationsbetingelserne under Byggesagsbeskrivelsens punkt 9.2.1, Generelt, at have anført følgende:
»Anvendelse af anderledes produkter skal fremgå af tilbuddet, og på forlangende skal tilbudsgiver dokumentere ligeværdighed med projektets produktangivelser. Dokumentation for ligeværdighed skal foretages af anerkendt, uvildig prøvningsanstalt. Anvendelse af materialer og produkter, der adskiller sig fra det i projektmaterialet anførte, skal forud – og skriftligt godkendes af byggeledelsen. Ingen sådanne materialer og produkter må leveres på byggepladsen før denne godkendelse.«
K4. Ad påstand 8 Indklagede har udelukket levering af glas og termoruder fra fabrikker, som ikke er tilsluttet Glasindustriens Samarbejdsorganisation, i strid med EFtraktatens artikel 28 og det EU-retlige ligebehandlingsprincip ved i licitationsbetingelserne under punkt 4 til Arbejdsbeskrivelse for tømrerentreprisen, Bygningsdelsbeskrivelse, at have anført følgende:
»(31).4.001 Glas – døre og vinduer, udvendig Glas og termoruder skal leveres fra fabrik tilsluttet Glasindustriens Samarbejdsorganisation.«
»(31).4.005 Glas - persiennerude (Hagen) Glas og termoruder leveres fra fabrik tilsluttet Glasindustriens Samarbejdsorganisation. « | N-060307
Visborg Entreprenørfirma | 1-2+K1 | ECT-28 | Ad påstand 1
1. Foreløbig bemærkes, at Udbudsdirektivet ikke finder anvendelse på indklagedes indgåelse af kontrakterne om det pågældende byggeri, og at der ikke er forelagt Klagenævnet nærmere oplysninger om de pågældende vinduesfabrikater.
2. Indklagede har ved foran navnet på det pågældende produkt – vinduer af mærket »Ideal Combi Frame« – alene at anføre ordet »som« ikke på tilstrækkelig utvetydig måde tilkendegivet, at der ikke kræves anvendt det anførte produkt. Indklagede har således ved ikke at anvende formuleringen »eller dermed ligestillet« eller tilsvarende lige så utvetydig formulering handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28. Påstanden tages derfor til følge som ændret nedenfor.
.....
K1. Ad påstand 1 Indklagede har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28 ved i licitationsbetingelserne at anføre: »Vinduespartier leveres som Ideal Combi Frame«, uden at der var tilføjet »eller dermed ligestillet« eller en tilsvarende bemærkning. | N-050131
HP Gruppen | 28-30+K7 | ECT-28 | 28. EF-traktatens artikel 28 er til hinder for, at en ordregivende myndighed i licitationsbetingelserne vedrørende en offentlig bygge- og anlægsopgave indsætter en bestemmelse om, at der skal tilbydes anvendt et bestemt fabrikat, såfremt denne bestemmelse ikke ledsages af bemærkningen »eller dermed ligestillet« eller tilsvarende bemærkning.
29. Dette gælder også i tilfælde, hvor entreprisesummen for bygge- og anlægsarbejdet ikke når tærskelværdien i direktiv 93/37 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter, som ændret ved direktiv 97/52 (Bygge- og anlægsdirektivet).
30. Indklagede har i licitationsbetingelserne anvendt den formulering vedrørende parketgulve, at der skulle anvendes gulve »som Junkers 14 mm. bøjlesystem «, idet der hertil bemærkes følgende: Brædderne skal være »14 mm massiv bøg HARMONI, ultramat lak. Mellemlag af Junkers Polyfilt«. Der er ikke hertil føjet »eller dermed ligestillet« eller tilsvarende bemærkning. Hertil kommer, at tilbudsgiverne i licitationsbetingelserne er pålagt at henvende sig til A/S Junckers Savværk for kontrolbesøg på stedet af firmaets konsulent og at indhente rapport fra den pågældende producent. Indklagede har således ikke i licitationsbetingelserne angivet, at tilbudsgiverne kunne anvende et dermed ligestillet produkt eller lignende ved valg af parketgulv, og Klagenævnet finder derfor, at indklagede ved den nævnte formulering har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28.
.....
K7. Indklagede har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28 ved i licitationsbetingelsernes »entreprisebeskrivelse« pkt. 2.310.57 at anføre »Gulve udføres som Junckers 14 mm bøjlesystem«. | N-041029
Flemming Damgaard | 16-20 | ECT-28 | 16. Som nævnt ad påstand 6 lægger Klagenævnet uanset formuleringen i licitationsbetingelsernes »Fagbeskrivelse« til grund, at indklagede vedrørende tømrer- og snedkerentreprisen har afviklet en sideordnet licitation, i hvilken forbindelse indklagede ønskede at modtage tilbud på bygge- og anlægsopgaven i følgende to tilfælde: 1) Hvor der tilbydes leveret parketgulv i 22 mm massiv bøg af typen Harmony fra Juncker’s lakeret med Isoblitza, og hvor tilbudet i øvrigt opfylder licitationsbetingelserne. 2) Hvor der tilbydes leveret parketgulv af typen Parket Evers Tarket Contract, 22 mm tykkelse eller et tilsvarende produkt, og hvor tilbudet i øvrigt opfylder licitationsbetingelserne.
17. EF-traktatens artikel 28 er til hinder for, at en ordregivende myndighed i licitationsbetingelserne vedrørende en offentlig bygge- og anlægsopgave indsætter en bestemmelse om, at der skal tilbydes anvendt et bestemt fabrikat, såfremt denne bestemmelse ikke ledsages af bemærkningen »eller dermed ligestillet« eller tilsvarende bemærkning.
18. Dette gælder også i tilfælde, hvor entreprisesummen for bygge- og anlægsarbejdet ikke når tærskelværdien i direktiv 93/37 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter, som ændret ved direktiv 97/52 (Bygge- og anlægsdirektivet).
19. Ved den anvendte formulering for den af de sideordnede licitationer, hvorunder der skulle tilbydes levering af »Parket Evers Tarket Contract, 22 mm tykkelse eller et tilsvarende produkt«, er der ikke sket en overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 28.
20. Klagenævnet finder derimod, at der ved den anvendte formulering for den af de sideordnede licitationer, hvorunder der skulle tilbydes levering af »parketgulv i 22 mm massiv bøg af typen Harmony fra Juncker’s lakeret med Isoblitza«, uden at der til denne formulering var nogen tilføjelse, er sket en overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 28. Klagenævnet bemærker, at fællesbeskrivelsen af »Fagbeskrivelser« under licitationen indeholder en lang række tilsvarende overtrædelser.
.....
K5. Indklagede har handlet i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 28 ved i licitationsbetingelserne for tømrer- og snedkerentreprisen at have fastsat: » Parketgulve …Parketgulve.22 mm massiv bøg, Type Harmony fra Juncker’s lakeret med Isoblitza« uden at tilføje »eller dermed ligestillet« eller tilsvarende bemærkning. | N-981111
Vestergaard | 1 | W1-3.4-5
ECT-28 [ex 30] | 1. Dundalk-dommen angik et udbud af et projekt til transportering af drikkevand i rørledninger. I udbudet, der var blevet bekendtgjort i EF-tidende, var indeholdt en bestemmelse om, at rørledningerne skulle være i overensstemmelse med en nærmere angivet irsk standard. EF-domstolen statuerede, at udbudet ikke stred mod reglen om udformning af tekniske specifikationer i det dagældende bygge- og anlægsdirektiv, fordi de arbejder, som udbudet angik, i direktivet var undtaget fra udbudspligten. EF-domstolen statuerede imidlertid videre, at den omtalte bestemmelse i udbudet var en overtrædelse af Traktatens artikel 30 om varernes frie bevægelighed. | N-981111
Vestergaard | 2-4 | ECT-12 [ex 6]
ECT-28 [ex 30
ECT-EquTran-impl] | 2. Dundalk-dommen angik et stort projekt, hvis værdi utvivlsomt overskred tærskelværdien i det dagældende Bygge- og anlægsdirektiv. Dundalkdommen kan derfor ikke antages at tage stilling til, om der efter Traktatens artikel 30 kan udledes et krav om angivelse af et bestemt mærke »eller dermed ligestillet«, hvis grunden til, at et udbud ikke er omfattet af pligt til EU-udbud, er, at det udbudtes værdi ikke når op på tærskelværdien i vedkommende direktiv. Udbud af mindre værdi har almindeligvis ikke interesse og betydning i EUsammenhæng.
3. Ved udbud af mindre værdi ville det desuden være uforholdsmæssigt omkostningskrævende for udbyderne at skulle overholde udbudsdirektivernes regler om tekniske specifikationer og at skulle foretage den deraf følgende nødvendige tekniske vurdering af tilbudene. Reglerne om tærskelværdier i EU’s udbudsdirektiver må antages at have til formål at identificere de udbud, for hvis vedkommende de nævnte forhold gør sig gældende, og dermed generelt udskille dem fra det EU-retlige dækningsområde. Klagenævnet finder herefter, at Traktatens artikel 6 og artikel 30 i hvert fald almindeligvis ikke indebærer et krav om, at angivelse af et bestemt mærke ikke må forekomme uden tilføjelse »eller dermed ligestillet« ved udbud, der ikke når op på tærskelværdien i vedkommende udbudsdirektiv.
4. Som følge heraf, og da der ikke er fremkommet noget, som kan føre til andet resultat, tages klagen ikke til følge. [Sammenhold med C-59/00 ovenfor]
[Sagsfremstillingen: Boligselskabet har videre henvist til, at man er nødt til at have ensartede produkter, som man kender og har tillid til. Man kender således Hvidbjerg Vinduets produkter, der er af god kvalitet og som erfaringsmæssigt medfører lavere vedligeholdelsesudgifter end andre produkter. Man bliver som bygherre konstant presset af Byggeskadefonden til at udføre byggerierne således, at der ikke senere opstår skader.] | N-961016
Danske Vognmænd | 2 | ECT-12 [ex 6]
ECT-30 [ex 30] | 2. Kravet i udbudsbetingelsernes punkt 9 om, at der ved indsamlingen af sækkene skal anvendes en komprimeringsenhed, som er forsynet med en automatisk sækkeisætter, der - efter at aflæsningen af den fyldte sæk er sket - automatisk sætter den nye sæk i sækkestativet, er et teknisk krav til den ydelse, som indklagede har udbudt. Det indebærer ikke nogen overtrædelse af Traktatens artikel 6 eller artikel 30, at de renovationsbiler, der skal anvendes ved den udbudte tjenesteydelse, efter det oplyste for tiden alene kan købes hos én forhandler i Danmark, og at det efter det oplyste må anses for teknisk vanskeligt og i hvert fald økonomiske urealistisk at ombygge de nuværende danske renovationsbiler, så de kan anvendes ved den udbudte tjenesteydelse. Det indebærer endvidere ikke nogen overtrædelse af udbudsreglerne, at indklagede ved sin beslutning om at vælge et system med automatisk sækkeisætter bl.a. har taget arbejdsmiljømæssige hensyn. Indklagede har således ikke ved fastsættelsen af dette tekniske krav til tjenesteydelsen tilsidesat EU-retlige regler, og Klagenævnet tager derfor ikke vedrørende dette krav i udbudsbetingelsernes punkt 9 klagerens påstand til følge. | N-961016
Danske Vognmænd | 3 | S2-3.1+11.1-impl
ECT-12 [ex 6]
ECT-30 [ex 30] | 3. Kravet i udbudsbetingelsernes punkt 9 om, at der ved indsamlingen af sækkene skal anvendes en komprimeringsenhed med høj indlæsning, er et tekniske krav til den ydelse, der udbydes. Indklagede har fastsat dette tekniske krav med henblik på at minimere risikoen for, at renovationsarbejderen også i forbindelse med indlæsningen af sækken i renovationsbilen kommer i kontakt med affaldet eller med bakterier eller aerosoler stammen de fra affaldet. Indklagede har med dette krav ønsket at tilgodese arbejdsmiljømæssige hensyn, og indklagede har ved fastsættelsen af kravet været fuldt klar over, at der herved stilles et arbejdsmiljømæssigt krav, der går videre end de krav, som Arbejdstilsynet for tiden har opstillet. Klagenævnet finder ikke, at indklagedes fastsættelse af dette krav til den udbudte tjenesteydelse er i strid med Traktatens artikel 6 eller artikel 30 eller indebærer en tilsidesættelse af Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet. Kravet burde være formuleret som et krav til den udbudte tjenesteydelse, nemlig som et krav om, at renovationsarbejderen heller ikke under tømningen af sækken kommer i kontakt med affaldet eller med bakterier eller aerosoler stammende fra affaldet, således at det var overladt til tilbudsgiverne selv at vælge metoden til opnåelse af dette mål. På baggrund af det oplyste om, at den eneste nuværende renovationsbil med automatisk sækkeisætter også har høj indlæsning, finder Klagenævnet dog ikke, at indklagede under de foreliggende omstændigheder med den anvendte formulering har tilsidesat udbudsreglerne. Klagenævnet tager derfor heller ikke vedrørende dette krav i udbudsbetingelsernes punkt 9 klagerens påstand til følge. |
|
|
