| | 32004L0018: c3-1.2.b.s2Work    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 1.2.b.s2 | | A "work" means the outcome of building or civil engineering works taken as a whole which is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic or technical function. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 1.2.b.2 | | A "work" means the outcome of building or civil engineering works taken as a whole which is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic or technical function. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 1.c | | (c) a 'work' means the outcome of building or civil engineering, works taken as a whole that is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic and technical function; | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 14.10.1.s2 | | 'Work' shall mean the result of building and civil engineering activities, taken as a whole, which are intended to fulfil an economic and technical function by themselves. | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.1=W-1.c | | (c) a "work'' means the outcome of building or civil engineering works taken as a whole that is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic and technical function; | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 12.6.1.s2 | | Work shall mean the building and engineering activities taken as a whole that are intended to fulfil an economic function by themselves. |
Legislation concerning national procurement of works| DLB-1410/07 - First codification of Third law on National Procurement (NPL3C1) | Article 1.5.s1 | | Stk. 5. Ved »bygge- og anlægsarbejder« forstås i overensstemmelse med udbudsdirektivet og forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet resultatet af et sæt bygge- og anlægsaktiviteter bestemt til i sig selv at udfylde en økonomisk eller teknisk funktion. | | DL-338/05 - Third law on National Procurement (NPL3) | Article 1.5.s1 | | Stk. 5. Ved »bygge- og anlægsarbejder« forstås i overensstemmelse med udbudsdirektivet og forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet resultatet af et sæt bygge- og anlægsaktiviteter bestemt til i sig selv at udfylde en økonomisk eller teknisk funktion. | | DL-450/01 - Second law on National Procurement (NPL2) | Article 1.2.p1 | | Stk. 2. Ved offentlige bygge- og anlægsopgaver forstås opgaver, der udbydes af ordregivere omfattet af artikel 1, litra b, i Rådets direktiv 93/37/EØF af 14. juni 1993 med senere ændringer ..... |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-187/04 & C-188/04
Italy | 26-30 | W2-1.c | 26 En quatrième lieu, il résulte de l’article 1er, sous c), de la directive 93/37 que l’existence d’un ouvrage doit être appréciée par rapport à la fonction économique ou technique du résultat des travaux effectués.
27 Or, comme le relève le gouvernement italien, la construction et la gestion de deux nouveaux raccordements autoroutiers sont, d’un point de vue technique, destinées à relier les zones choisies afin de résoudre les graves problèmes de voirie que connaissent les communes concernées. Le résultat de l’ensemble des travaux de génie civil en cause remplit donc par lui-même la fonction technique.
28 Quant à la fonction économique visée par la directive 93/37, il convient de constater qu’un concessionnaire d’autoroute, en tant qu’il met à la disposition des usagers contre rémunération une infrastructure autoroutière, accomplit une activité économique (voir en ce sens, arrêt du 12 septembre 2000, Commission/France, C-276/97, Rec. p. I-6251, point 32). L’absence d’une rentabilité autonome des concessions en cause n’est pas de nature à enlever à l’ensemble des travaux concernés son caractère d’ouvrage au sens de la directive 93/37.
29 En tout état de cause, pour que le résultat des travaux puisse être qualifié d’ouvrage au sens de l’article 1er, sous c), de la directive 93/37, il suffit que soit remplie l’une de deux fonctions susmentionnées.
30 Il résulte de ce qui précède que les griefs de la Commission sont fondés. | C-187/04 & C-188/04
Italy | 31 | W2-1.c
W2-7.3.a
W2-7.3.d
W2-3.1
W2-11.3
W2-11.6
W2-11.7 | 31 Dans ces conditions, il convient de constater que, dans la mesure où l’ANAS a confié la construction et la gestion des autoroutes de la Valtrompia et de la Pedemontana Veneta Ovest à la société concessionnaire dans le cadre de concessions directes sans publication préalable d’un avis de marché, alors même que les conditions nécessaires à cet égard n’étaient pas réunies, la République italienne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de la directive 93/37, et plus particulièrement des articles 3, paragraphe 1, et 11, paragraphes 3, 6 et 7 de celle-ci. | C-16/98
France | 35-38 | U2-14.10.1.s2 | 35 The criteria for deciding whether there is a work must also be established. 36 In that connection, it is clear from the definition of work in Article 14(10), first subparagraph, of the Directive that the existence of a work must be assessed in the light of the economic and technical function of the result of the works concerned.
37 The present case concerns a series of specific maintenance and extension works on the existing electricity supply and street lighting networks, the result of which, once completed, will be subsumed within the function fulfilled by the networks concerned.
38 It follows that, in the case of that type of works, the question whether there is a work must be assessed in the light of the economic and technical function fulfilled by the electricity supply and street lighting networks in question. | C-16/98
France | 42-47 | U2-14.10.1.s2 | 42 It should be observed that, while the existence of a single contracting entity and the possibility of a Community undertaking's carrying out the whole of the works described in the contracts concerned may, according to circumstances, constitute corroborative evidence of the existence of a work within the meaning of the Directive, they cannot, on the other hand, constitute decisive criteria on that point. Thus, if there is a number of contracting entities and the whole of the works concerned cannot be carried out by a single undertaking, this will not call into question the existence of a single work where that conclusion results from the application of the criteria concerning function set out in Article 14(10), first subparagraph, second sentence, of the Directive.
43 The definition of the term work in that subparagraph does not make the existence of a work dependent on matters such as the number of contracting entities or whether the whole of the works can be carried out by a single undertaking.
44 That interpretation is consistent with the objective of the Directive which is to ensure that undertakings from other Member States will be able to tender for contracts or bundles of contracts likely to be of interest to them for objective reasons relating to their value. 45 First, it is conceivable that, for administrative or other reasons, a programme of works for the execution of a work within the meaning of the Directive might be the subject of several procedures originating with various contracting authorities. This might be so, for example, in the case of the construction of a road crossing the territory of several local authorities, each having administrative responsibility for a section of the road. In such a case, the above objective would be thwarted if the applicability of the Directive were ruled out on the ground that the estimated value of each section of the work was below the threshold of ECU 5 000 000.
46 Second, a Community undertaking may wish to be informed of the value of all the lots making up a work, even if it is not in a position to carry out all of them, as it is only in that way that it can assess the exact scope of the contract and adjust its prices according to the number of lots for which it proposes to tender, including, if necessary, those whose value is below the threshold of ECU 5 000 000.
47 It follows from the foregoing that in this case the question whether there is a work must be answered on the basis of the criteria laid down by Article 14(10), first subparagraph, second sentence, of the Directive, as set out in paragraph 38 of this judgment. | C-16/98
France | 50-60 | U2-14.10.1.s2
U2-14.13 | 50 The French Government contends that the present case concerns local electricity supply or street lighting networks which are independent of one another and that, therefore, the works on those networks are not contributing to the execution of a single work with functional or economic continuity.
51 In line with the finding at paragraph 38 of this judgment, in order to rule on this complaint, it is necessary to consider the economic and technical function fulfilled by the electricity supply and street lighting networks in question.
52 An electricity supply network is intended, from a technical point of view, to transport the electricity produced by a supplier to individual end consumers; in terms of economics, they must pay the supplier for what they consume.
53 However, a street lighting network is intended, from a technical point of view, to light public places using the electricity provided by the electricity supply network. The authority providing the street lighting assumes the cost itself, but subsequently recovers the amounts spent from the population served, without adjusting the sums demanded according to the benefit derived by the individuals concerned.
54 It follows that an electricity supply network and a street lighting network have a different economic and technical function.
55 It should be added that this difference of function is the same, whether at the level of the whole département or of the joint municipal groupings.
56 Accordingly, works on the electricity supply and street lighting networks cannot be considered to constitute lots of a single work artificially split contrary to Article 14(10), first subparagraph, and (13) of the Directive.
57 That finding is not affected by the considerations put forward by the Commission.
58 First, the fact that the works on the public address system are mentioned both in the notices concerning electrification and in those concerning street lighting does not mean that the respective networks fulfil the same economic and technical function. Their inclusion might be explained by the fact that parts of a public address network are carried by electricity supply ducts and street lighting masts, so that work on either of those networks entails work on the public address system.
59 Second, the fact that in two other French départements the contracting entities chose to include electrification work and street lighting work in the same contract notice does not alter the different economic and technical function which those networks are intended to fulfil.
60 Accordingly, the complaint alleging artificial splitting of the work into electrification works and street lighting works must be rejected. | C-16/98
France | 61-62 + 64-66 | U2-14.10.1.s2
U2-14.13 | 61 The Commission complains that the French authorities artificially split the work in respect of electrification works. In that connection it points to the geographical contiguity of the networks, the simultaneity of the work programmes, the identical nature of the work descriptions in each contract notice and the overall coordination by Sydev.
62 The French Government contends that each joint municipal grouping concluded a separate contract for the network falling within its authority. It explains, on that point, that the joint municipal groupings are responsible for the low voltage electricity supply networks radiating from transformer substations which supply consumers in their territory with electricity.
......
64 It must be observed in that regard that, even if, for administrative reasons, the joint municipal groupings in Vendée are responsible for the low-voltage electricity supply networks in the territory of the municipalities which those groupings comprise, that fact cannot, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 43 and 45 of this judgment, be of decisive importance, since those networks are interconnectable and, taken as a whole, they fulfil one economic and technical function, which consists in the supply and sale to consumers in the département of Vendée of electricity produced and supplied by Electricité de France.
65 As regards the contention of the French Government that such reasoning could be applied to the whole of the French electricity supply network, it must be observed that each tender for a contract must be assessed according to its context and its particular characteristics. In the present case, there are important factors which militate in favour of those contracts being aggregated at that level, such as the fact that the invitations for tenders for the contested contracts were made at the same time, the similarities between the contract notices and the fact that Sydev, the body comprising the joint municipal groupings responsible for electrification within the département, initiated and coordinated the contracts within a single geographical area.
66 This complaint of the Commission must, therefore, be upheld and it must be held that the contracts for electrification form part of a single work which has been artificially split. Accordingly, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(10), first subparagraph, and (13) of the Directive. | C-16/98
France | 67-71 | U2-14.10.1.s2
U2-14.13 | 67 The Commission submits that the work was artificially split in respect of street lighting works between several entities within the département of Vendée. It puts forward the same arguments in support of its complaint as those raised in support of the complaint concerning electrification.
68 In the written procedure, the French Government stressed the local nature and the autonomy of the street lighting networks.
69 It must be observed in that regard that, unlike electricity supply networks, street lighting networks are, from a technical point of view, not necessarily interdependent, as they can be restricted to built-up areas and no interconnection between them is necessary. Similarly, it is possible, in economic terms, for each of the local entities concerned to assume the financial burden arising from the operation of such a network. In the light of these factors, it is for the Commission to establish that, from a technical and economic point of view, the street lighting networks concerned in this case formed one unit within the département. The Commission has put forward no evidence to that effect.
70 It follows that, even if the economic and technical function of each street lighting network is the same as that of all the others within the département of Vendée, it is not possible to consider all those networks to form a whole with a single economic and technical function within the département.
71 Accordingly, that complaint of the Commission must be rejected. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-031120
Ole Holst | 1+K1 | KNL2-1-impl
NPL2-1.2.p1-impl | 1. Den af licitationen omfattede leverance er ikke en bygge- og anlægsopgave omfattet af Tilbudsloven, og inventaret ville ikke på nogen måde indgå som en fast bestandel af den bygning, hvori indklagede fra lejede lokaler driver virksomhed. Herefter tages indklagedes påstand om afvisning til følge.
.....
K1. Klagen afvises.
[Klageren har til støtte for påstanden om, at sagen fremmes til afgørelsen i realiteten, gjort gældende, at de møbler m.v., klageren tilbød leveret efter anbringelsen i lokalerne, ville blive en så integreret og uadskillelig del af disse, at licitationen var omfattet af tilbudsloven, jf. § 1, stk. 2. Hertil kommer, at indklagede i hvert fald ved mødet den 28. marts 2003 tilkendegav den mening, at licitationen var omfattet af tilbudsloven. En eventuel fortolkningstvivl må føre til, at loven bringes i anvendelse.
Indklagede har til støtte for afvisningspåstanden gjort gældende, at licitationen alene vedrørte inventar til anvendelse i lejede lokaler. Dette havde på ingen måde en sådan »integreret« tilknytning til de i ejendommen værende lokaler, der var lejede, at de kunne anses for at være blevet »bestanddele« af 5. ejendommen. Det var alene indklagede, der, efter sket levering, kunne træffe dispositioner vedrørende inventaret, som i øvrigt for få omkostninger, uden indgreb i bygningen, kunne omplaceres, eventuelt helt fjernes.] |
|
|
