| | 31989L0665: rc1-1.2No discrimination    
| 31989L0665 - Remedies Classic (1st generation) | Article 1.2 | | 2. Member States shall ensure that there is no discrimination between undertakings claiming injury in the context of a procedure for the award of a contract as a result of the distinction made by this Directive between national rules implementing Community law and other national rules. | | 31992L0013 - Remedies Utilities (1st generation) | Article 1.2 | | 2. Member States shall ensure that there is no discrimination between undertakings likely to make a claim for injury in the context of a procedure for the award of a contract as a result of the distinction made by this Directive between national rules implementing Community law and other national rules. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-225/97
France | 29-32 | RU1-1.2 | 29 Lastly, the Commission submits that in so far as Law No 93-1416 does not really guarantee that the penalty payment will have a deterrent effect, it has established a procedure which is specific and less coercive than that provided for under French civil law, thereby infringing Article 1(2) of the Directive. The Commission maintains that there is a difference between the provisions governing penalty payments set out in Law No 93-1416 and the provisions of Law No 91-650 of 9 July 1991 on the reform of civil enforcement procedures (JORF of 14 July 1991, p. 9228). That difference, according to the Commission, indicates an intention on the part of the French legislature to make the special rules laid down in Law No 93-1416 less coercive than the general rules laid down in Law No 91-650.
30 In this connection it need only be pointed out that - as the French Government has maintained, without any real rebuttal from the Commission - the two Laws in question have different objectives. Law No 91-650, which aims to give a creditor with a right to recovery the means to enforce that right against the debtor's assets - in the context of the settlement of debts which have been acknowledged to be quantified and recoverable - does not confer on the courts any power to intervene in a contracting entity's procurement procedures.
31 As the Advocate General pointed out in point 17 of his Opinion, although Law No 91-650 introduced a penalty payment procedure, it could not provide a basis for the transposition into national law of the Directive.
32 Consequently, the Commission's allegation that the French legislature sought to set up a special procedure distinct from the rules of civil law in force and not providing the guarantees required under the Directive is unfounded. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-040830
Benny Hansens Tømrer- og Snedkerforretning | 1-4 | NPL2-na [C3-1.2.b.s1]
KNL2-1.2
C3-16.a-impl | 1. Det fremgår af licitationsbetingelserne af maj 2002, at det er indklagede, der som bygherre vedrørende byggeriet omfattende de 20 nye boliger iværksatte licitationen, og det er derfor indklagede, der har ansvaret for, at Tilbudsloven – såfremt den er gældende for licitaitonen – er blevet overholdt.
2. Det er ikke i licitationsbetingelserne fastsat, at Tilbudsloven skal gælde for licitationen, jf. Tilbudslovens § 1, stk. 4.
3. Det fremgår af dokumentet benævnt »Entreprisekontrakt« underskrevet af Boligselskabet BSB Ølgod, afdeling 11, den 28. november 2002 og af indklagede den 15. december 2002, at indklagede i totalentreprise påtager sig at lade opføre 20 boligenheder på tilsammen 1.534 m2 på ejendommen Vangsgade 6, 6870 Ølgod, som indklagede samtidig hermed har overdraget til Boligselskabet BSB Ølgod, afdeling 11. På baggrund af dette dokument og de øvrige oplysninger om retsforholdet mellem indklagede og Boligselskabet BSB Ølgod, afdeling 11, kan Klagenævnet fastslå, at indklagedes anskaffelse af den faste ejendom Vangsgade 6, indklagedes efterfølgende opførelse af boligerne på ejendommen og indklagedes salg af ejendommen med de nyopførte boliger har haft til formål at skaffe boligselskabet den ønskede boligejendom, uden at boligselskabet selv behøvede at stå som bygherre. Der er intet oplyst om, at det ved den anvendte fremgangsmåde har været tilsigtet at undgå, at Tilbudsloven skulle finde anvendelse på den licitation, der skulle gennemføres i forbindelse med byggeriet. Imidlertid indebærer den valgte fremgangsmåde med hensyn til boligselskabets anskaffelse af den nye boligejendom, at Tilbudsloven finder anvendelse på den licitation, som indklagede skulle gennemføre, på samme måde, som det ville have været tilfældet, hvis boligselskabet selv havde stået som bygherre.
4. Den pågældende licitation er således omfattet af Tilbudsloven, og dette indbærer, at Klagenævnet er kompetent til at behandle klagen, jf. Tilbudslovens § 1, stk. 2, jf. § 13. Klagenævnet afviser derfor ikke klagen.
.....
K1. Klagen afvises ikke. |
|
|
