| | 32004L0018: c3-4.2Groups of economic operators    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 4.2 | | 2. Groups of economic operators may submit tenders or put themselves forward as candidates. In order to submit a tender or a request to participate, these groups may not be required by the contracting authorities to assume a specific legal form; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract, to the extent that this change is necessary for the satisfactory performance of the contract. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 11.2 | | 2. Groups of economic operators may submit tenders or put themselves forward as candidates. In order to submit a tender or a request to participate, these groups may not be required by the contracting entities to assume a specific legal form; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract, to the extent to which this change is necessary for the satisfactory performance of the contract. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 21 | Article 21
Tenders may be submitted by groups of contractors. These groups may not be required to assume a specific legal form in order to submit the tender; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 18 | Article 18
Tenders may be submitted by groups of suppliers. These groups may not be required to assume a specific legal form in order to submit the tender; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract, to the extent that this change is necessary for the satisfactory performance of the contract. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 26.1 | Article 26
1. Tenders may be submitted by groups of service providers. These groups may not be required to assume a specific legal form in order to submit the tender; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 33.1 | Article 33
1. Groupings of suppliers, contractors or service providers shall be permitted to tender or negotiate. The conversion of such groupings into a specific legal form shall not be required in order to submit a tender or to negotiate, but the grouping selected may be required so to convert itself once it has been awarded the contract where such conversion is necessary for the proper performance of the contract. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 21 | Article 21
Tenders may be submitted by groups of contractors. These groups may not be required to assume a specific legal form in order to submit the tender; however, the group selected may be required to do so when it has been awarded the contract. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 18 | Article 18
Tenders may be submitted by groupings of suppliers. These groupings shall not be required to assume a specific legal form in order to submit the tender; however, the grouping selected may be required to do so if it is awarded the contract, to the extent that this change is necessary for the satisfactory performance of the contract. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 26 | Article 26
Groupings of suppliers or contractors shall be permitted to tender or negotiate. The conversion of such groupings into a specific legal form shall not be required in order to submit a tender or to negotiate, but the grouping selected may be required so to convert itself once it has been awarded the contract where such conversion is necessary for the proper performance of the contract. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-357/06
Frigerio Luigi | 24-25 | S2-26.1 | 24. As regards the facts at the origin of the dispute in the main proceedings, the file shows that Frigerio brought the action in the main proceedings as the principal entity in a temporary joint venture which had provided environmental hygiene services for the Comune di Triuggio between 1 January 1996 and 30 June 2006.
25. In that regard, it also follows from Article 26(1) of Directive 92/50 that adjudicating authorities cannot require groups of service providers to assume a specific legal form in order to submit a tender. | C-357/06
Frigerio Luigi | 24-25 | S2-26.1
S2-26.2 | 29. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first and second questions referred is that Article 26(1) and (2) of Directive 92/50 precludes national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude candidates or tenderers entitled under the law of the Member State concerned to provide the service in question, including those composed of groups of service providers, from submitting a tender, in a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a value greater than the threshold for application of Directive 92/50, solely on the ground that those candidates or tenderers do not have a legal form corresponding to a specific category of legal persons, namely that of a company with share capital. It is for the national court, to the full extent of its discretion under national law, to interpret and apply national law in accordance with the requirements of Community law and, in so far as such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to those requirements. | C-57/01
Makedoniko | 18+58-63 | W2-3.1
W2-21 | 18 Article 6(2) of the supplementary notice specified that the preselected consortia were authorised to take part in the form that they had taken during the first stage of the procedure, that the creation of groupings or other forms of cooperation between them was strictly precluded and, finally, that it was possible for a consortium to be enlarged by the addition of a new member, provided that the new member had not been included in any other consortium preselected to take part in the second stage of the procedure.
.....
58 As regards the first part of the question, the order for reference does not indicate whether the contract at issue in the main proceedings is a `public works contract' or a `public works concession' within the meaning of Directive 93/37. It is not for the Court, on a reference for a preliminary ruling, to resolve that question. In such circumstances, the question must be addressed by examining each of those hypotheses in turn.
59 If the contract at issue were a `public works contract' within the meaning of Directive 93/37, the directive would apply as provided in Articles 4 to 6.
60 The only provision of Directive 93/37 dealing with groups of contractors is Article 21. That is confined, first, to stating that tenders may be submitted by groups of contractors and, second, to preventing them from being required to assume a specific legal form before the contract has been awarded to the group selected.
61 It must be pointed out that Article 21 makes no provision about the composition of such groups. Rules about their composition are thus a matter for the Member States.
62 The same is true a fortiori if the contract at issue in the main proceedings is a `public works concession' within the meaning of Directive 93/37. It follows from Article 3(1) of the directive that Article 21 does not even apply to public works concessions.
63 Consequently, the answer to the first part of the question must be that Directive 93/37 does not preclude national rules which prohibit a change in the composition of a group of contractors taking part in a procedure for the award of a public works contract or a public works concession which occurs after submission of tenders. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-080115
C.F. Møller | 1-3+K1 | C3-2.noncom-impl
C3-4.2 | Ad påstand 1
1. Det er i udbudsbekendtgørelsen bestemt, at kun sammenslutning af økonomiske aktører kan opnå ordren. Dette er ikke i strid med udbudsdirekktivets art. 4, stk. 2, om retlig form.
2. Virksomheder, der udtrykkeligt har anført, at der ikke ansøges om prækvalifikation som sammenslutning, kan ikke komme i betragtning som tilbudsgiver i den form, hvori der er anmodet om prækvalifikation. Indklagede har derfor med rette undladt at prækvalificere klageren, der udtrykkeligt i sin anmodning om prækvalifikation har anført, at klageren er totalrådgivere med COWI A/S som underrådgiver, hvorved bemærkes, at indklagede har bedømt klagerens anmodning om prækvalifikation på samme måde som anmodninger fra andre tilbudsgivere, der udtrykkeligt angav at være totalrådgivere med underrådgivere.
3. Klagerens påstand 1 tages ikke til følge.
.....
K1. Klagen tages ikke til følge.
[Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med det udbudsretlige ligebehandlings- og gennemsigtighedsprincip og EU-udbudsdirektivets art. 2 ved ikke at behandle klagers anmodning om prækvalifikation med henvisning til, at klager har tilkendegivet at ville afgive tilbud på en måde, der er i strid med det i udbudsbekendtgørelsen forudsatte om solidarisk og direkte hæftelse over for indklagede.] | N-020103
AC-Trafik | 7-8 | S2-26.1-impl
S2-31.2-3-impl
S2-32.3-impl
S2-36.1-impl | 7. Den omstændighed, at tilbudsgiveren Vifa A/S under stiftelse på tidspunktet for afgivelsen af tilbudet alene var et selskab »under stiftelse«, udelukker ikke efter EU-udbudsreglerne, at tilbudet fra denne tilbudsgiver skal tages i betragtning på lige fod med tilbudene fra de øvrige tilbudsgivere, og dette gælder uanset det forhold, at stifternes beslutning om at stifte selskabet var betinget af, at selskabet under udbudet ville få en kontrakt.
8. Det anførte indebærer endvidere, at en udbyder, når et selskab under stiftelse afgiver tilbud, efter EU-udbudsreglerne må acceptere, at denne tilbudsgivers dokumentation vedrørende virksomhedens »soliditet« og »organisation« har et andet indhold end den dokumentation vedrørende disse udvælgelseskriterier og underkriterier, som selskaber, der allerede driver virksomhed, kan tilvejebringe. Efter en gennemgang af de oplysninger, som Vifa A/S under stiftelse fremsendte til indklagede som en del af tilbudet, opfyldte denne tilbudsgiver udbudsbetingelserne. Indklagede havde således ikke grundlag for at undlade at tage tilbudet fra Vifa A/S under stiftelse i betragtning. Klagenævnet tager derfor ikke påstand 5 til følge. |
|
|
