| | 31989L0665: rc1-2.6.2May be limited    
| 31989L0665 - Remedies Classic (1st generation) | Article 2.6.2 | | Furthermore, except where a decision must be set aside prior to the award of damages, a Member State may provide that, after the conclusion of a contract following its award, the powers of the body responsible for the review procedures shall be limited to awarding damages to any person harmed by an infringement. | | 31992L0013 - Remedies Utilities (1st generation) | Article 2.6.s2 | | Furthermore, except where a decision must be set aside prior to the award of damages, a Member State may provide that, after the conclusion of a contract following its award, the powers of the body responsible for the review procedures shall be limited to awarding damages to any person harmed by an infringement. |
| General comment | na | Ingen udtrykkelig begrænsning af Klagenævnets kompetence i forhold til indgåede kontrakter, men kompetence til at annullere eller kræve sådanne kontrrakter ophævet er ikke udtrykkelig inkluderet i § 5.1.
Sammenhold med begrænsningen i kompetence med hensyn til erstaning, der i KNL1 var udtrykkeligt fastsat i § 5.2. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-444/06
Spain | 33-39 | RC1A1-41=RC1-1.1
RC1-2.1.a
RC1-2.1.b
RC1-2.6.2
ECT-226 | 33. It should, at the outset, be stated that, in examining this action, it is necessary to take into consideration the explanations of the law provided by the Kingdom of Spain which are not disputed by the Commission. Those explanations are based on the interpretations in the caselaw of the national courts as to the effects which follow from the act of awarding the contract and the finalisation of the contract respectively, since those legal concepts are matters of national law.
34. Thus, the arguments put forward by the Commission in support of the first and second pleas must be analysed in the light of the finding that, according to the law of the Member State in question, first, the act of awarding the contract leads automatically to the formation of the contract to which it relates and, accordingly, determines, of itself, the rights and duties of the parties and, second, the finalisation of that contract is a formality required exclusively so that the contract awarded can be performed, and cannot alter the contract or add to it.
35. According to recitals (1) and (2) in the preamble to the review directive, it seeks to reinforce existing arrangements, at both national and Community levels, for ensuring the effective application of Community directives on the award of public contracts, in particular at the stage where infringements can still be rectified.
36. In that regard, Article 1(1) of the review directive requires Member States to put in place review procedures which are effective and as rapid as possible against the decisions taken by the contracting authorities which infringe Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law.
37. It follows from the caselaw of the Court that the combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of the directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority's decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages (see Alcatel Austria and Others , paragraph 43).
38. Moreover, the complete legal protection which must accordingly be ensured before the conclusion of the contract pursuant to Article 2(1) of the review directive presupposes, in particular, the duty to inform the tenderers of the award decision before the conclusion of the contract so that they may have a real possibility of initiating review proceedings.
39. That same protection requires provision to be made for the unsuccessful tenderer to examine in sufficient time the question of whether the decision to award is valid. In the light of the need to guarantee the effectiveness of the review directive, it follows that a reasonable period must pass between the moment when the award decision is communicated to the unsuccessful tenderers and the conclusion of the contract in order to allow them, inter alia, to bring an application for interim measures until the conclusion of the contract. | C-444/06
Spain | 40-47 | RC1A1-41=RC1-1.1
RC1-2.1.a
RC1-2.1.b
RC1-2.6.2 | 40. In this case, it must be pointed out that, first, it is not disputed that the Spanish legislation authorises review proceedings against acts of contracting authorities prior to the award of the public contract. Further, in accordance with Article 107(1) of the Law on the common administrative procedure, the persons concerned are able to initiate review proceedings against the procedural acts where they decide, directly or indirectly, the substance of the case, make it impossible to continue the procedure or to put up a defence, or cause irremediable harm to legitimate rights or interests. In the context of those review proceedings, interim measures can be taken, in particular the suspension of the contested acts.
41. Second, the act of awarding the contract is notified to all the tenderers, in accordance with Articles 58(1) and (2) of the Law on the common administrative procedure and Article 93(1) of the Law on public procurement. That notification must be made according to the rules of general law applicable to administrative acts, namely within the 10 days following the adoption of that act awarding the contract, and must give details of the possibilities of review.
42. However, inasmuch as the act of awarding the contract leads de jure to the conclusion of the contract, it follows that the decision of the contracting authority, by which it chooses the contractor from amongst the tenderers cannot be the subject of specific review proceedings prior to the conclusion as such of that contract.
43. Third, it must be pointed out that the finalisation of the contract may be concurrent with the award of the contract concerned, or follow it within a very short period. The finalisation as, moreover, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges, is not subject to any minimum period and may occur from the moment that the contractor demonstrates the provision of a definitive guarantee, since the legislation only requires that it be provided at the latest within 15 days of notification of the award of the contract. Therefore, the performance of the contract may commence before the award has been the subject of all the notifications required.
44. It follows that, in certain cases, no effective review proceedings can be brought against the act of awarding the contract before the performance as such of the contract although the objective of the review directive is to ensure that unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible (see, to that effect, Case C470/99 Universale-Bau and Others [2002] ECR I-11617, paragraph 74).
45. Fourth, the fact that there is the option of bringing proceedings for the annulment of the contract itself is not such as to compensate for the impossibility of challenging the mere act of awarding the contract concerned, before the contract is concluded.
46. Consequently, the legislation at issue does not allow unsuccessful tenderers to bring review proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the review directive against the decision to award a public contract resulting from it.
47. The first two pleas are, accordingly, well founded. | C-444/06
Spain | 53-57 | RC1A1-41=RC1-1.1
RC1-2.1.a
RC1-2.1.b
RC1-2.6.2 | 53. In this case, it is not disputed that the preservation of the effects of a contract subject to an administrative declaration of invalidity such as that provided for in the contested national legislation can only occur in the case of a serious disruption to public services.
54. Consequently, as is clear from the wording of Article 65(3) of the Law on public procurement, such preservation is only intended to apply in exceptional cases and pending the adoption of urgent measures. In addition, that preservation applies, as the Kingdom of Spain has stated without being contradicted by the Commission, subject to review by the courts.
55. Thus, it appears that the aim of the provision is not to prevent the enforcement of the declaration of invalidity of a specific contract, but to avoid, where the public interest is at stake, excessive and potentially prejudicial consequences of the immediate enforcement of the declaration, pending the adoption of urgent measures, in order to ensure the continuity of public services.
56. In those circumstances, the Commission has not demonstrated that the contested legislation undermines the requirements of the review directive.
57. Consequently, the third plea must be dismissed as unfounded. | C-503/04
Germany | 31-35 | RC1-2.6.2
ECT-228 | 31. However, the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland, submits that the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, which allows Member States to provide in their legislation that, after the conclusion of a contract following the award of a public contract, the bringing of an action can give rise only to an award of damages and, thus, to exclude any possibility of rescission of that contract, precludes a finding of failure to fulfil obligations within the meaning of Article 226 EC with regard to such a contract entailing the obligation to rescind it. According to those Member States, the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle pacta sunt servanda , the fundamental right to property, Article 295 EC and the case-law of the Court regarding the limitation in time of the effects of a judgment also preclude such a result.
32. However, such arguments cannot be upheld.
33. With regard, firstly, to the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, the Court has already held that, although that provision permits the Member States to preserve the effects of contracts concluded in breach of directives relating to the award of public contracts and thus protects the legitimate expectations of the parties thereto, its effect cannot be, unless the scope of the EC Treaty provisions establishing the internal market is to be reduced, that the contracting authority's conduct vis-à-vis third parties is to be regarded as in conformity with Community law following the conclusion of such contracts (Joined Cases C20/01 and C28/01 Commission v Germany , paragraph 39).
34. If the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 does not affect the application of Article 226 EC, nor can it affect the application of Article 228 EC, without, in a situation such as that in the present case, reducing the scope of the Treaty provisions establishing the internal market.
35. Furthermore, the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, which has the objective of guaranteeing the existence, in all Member States, of effective remedies for infringements of Community law in the field of public procurement or of the national rules implementing that law, so as to ensure the effective application of the directives on the coordination of public procurement procedures (Case C470/99 Universale-Bau and Others [2002] ECR I11617, paragraph 71), relates, as is apparent from its wording, to the compensation which a person harmed by an infringement committed by a contracting authority may obtain from it. That provision, because of its specific nature, cannot be regarded also as regulating the relations between a Member State and the Community in the context of Articles 226 EC and 228 EC. | C-20/01 & C-28/01
Germany | 38-39 | RC1-2.6
ECT-226 | 38 That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the Member States are able, pursuant to Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, to limit the powers of the body responsible for review procedures, after the conclusion of a contract following its award, to awarding damages to any person harmed by an infringement of Community law on public procurement.
39 Although Article 2(6) permits the Member States to preserve the effects of contracts concluded in breach of directives relating to the award of public contracts and thus protects the legitimate interests of the parties thereto, its effect cannot be, unless the scope of the Treaty provisions establishing the internal market is to be reduced, that the contracting authority's conduct vis-à-vis third parties is to be regarded as in conformity with Community law following conclusion of such contracts. | C-81/98
Alcatel Austria | 36-43 | RC1-2.1.a
RC1-2.1.b
RC1-2.6.2 | 36 The Bundesministerium and the Austrian Government contend, essentially, that the organisation of the procedure before the Bundesvergabeamt, whereby once a contract has been concluded the decision of a contracting authority may be challenged only in so far as the unlawful nature of the decision has resulted in damage to the party seeking review in national proceedings, and whereby the procedure is to be limited to easing the conditions for the award of damages by the ordinary courts, complies with Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665.
37 As the Advocate General observed in points 36 and 37 of his Opinion, it is clear from the actual wording of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 that the limitation of review procedures provided for therein applies only after the conclusion of the contract following the awarding decision. Directive 89/665 thus draws a distinction between the stage prior to the conclusion of the contract, to which Article 2(1) applies, and the stage subsequent to its conclusion, in respect of which a Member State may, according to the second subparagraph of Article 2(6), provide that the powers of the body responsible for the review procedures are to be limited to awarding damages to any person harmed by an infringement.
38 Moreover, the interpretation proposed by the Bundesministerium and the Austrian Government might lead to the systematic removal of the most important decision of the contracting authority, that is to say the award of the contract, from the purview of the measures which, under Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665, must be taken concerning the review procedures referred to in Article 1, thereby undermining the purpose of Directive 89/665 which, as noted in paragraph 34 of this judgment, is to establish effective and rapid procedures to review unlawful decisions of the contracting authority at a stage where infringements may still be rectified.
39 The Austrian Government also contends that if Directive 89/665 must be interpreted as drawing a distinction between the decision awarding a contract and the conclusion of that contract, the directive fails to specify in any way what time should elapse between the two stages. The United Kingdom Government indicated at the hearing that no time should be fixed since there are different types of award procedure.
40 The argument based on the lack of an intervening period between the decision awarding a contract and the conclusion of the contract is irrelevant. The fact that there is no express provision in that connection cannot justify interpreting Directive 89/665 in such a way as to remove decisions awarding public contracts systematically from the purview of the measures which, according to Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665, must be taken concerning the review procedures referred to in Article 1.
41 With regard to the time which must elapse between the decision awarding a contract and its conclusion, the United Kingdom Government also states that no such time is specified in Directive 93/36 and that the directive's provisions, as Articles 7, 9 and 10 thereof show, are exhaustive.
42 All that need be stated in that regard, as the Advocate General noted in points 70 and 71 of his Opinion, is that those provisions correspond to the equivalent provisions in the directives which preceded Directive 89/665, the first recital in the preamble to which states that they `do not contain any specific provision ensuring their effective application'.
43 It follows from those considerations that the combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 are to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority's decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-070821
Centralforeningen af Taxiforeninger i Danmark | 3 | KNL2-1-impl
KNL2-4-impl
RC1-2.6.2-impl | 3. Klagenævnet bemærker i øvrigt, at det for Klagenævnets afgørelse er uden betydning, om indklagedes indgåelse den 27. februar 2007 af den efterfølgende kontrakt med Skive Taxa er i strid med udbudsbetingelserne for udbudet iværksat ved udbudsbekendtgørelsen af 30. november 2006. Antages det, at den pågældende bestemmelse i udbudsbetingelserne også indgår som et led i kontrakterne mellem indklagede og de 76 kontraktsparter, kan der muligvis foreligge en overtrædelse af et sådant kontraktsvilkår. Klageren er imidlertid ikke klageberettiget vedrørende tvister om indgåede kontrakter. Endvidere er Klagenævnet ikke kompetent vedrørende tvister om indgåede kontrakter. Klagenævnet har derfor ikke taget disse synspunkter i betragtning. | N-070618
KPC Byg | 18-22 | KNL2-1-impl
KNL2-6.1.p4
RC1-2.6.2-impl | Ad påstand 6
18. Ifølge § 6, stk. 1, i lov om Klagenævnet for Udbud kan Klagenævnet afvise en sag eller afgøre den i realiteten helt eller delvis, herunder annullere ulovlige beslutninger eller pålægge ordregiveren at lovliggøre udbudsforretningen.
19. Klagenævnet kan ikke tage stilling til, hvilke konsekvenser annullationen af udbudet og annullationen af beslutningen om at indgå kontrakt med Hansson & Knudsen A/S har for retsforholdet mellem indklagede og Hansson & Knudsen A/S. Dette må afgøres enten ved forhandling og aftale eller af domstolene.
20. Klagenævnet kan heller ikke pålægge indklagede at gennemføre et nyt udbud, idet det står indklagede – som ordregiver – frit for, om indklagede, hvis kontrakten med Hansson & Knudsen ophæves, vil kontrahere på ny eller ej, og dermed også, om der skal iværksættes et nyt udbud eller ej.
21. Efter en samlet vurdering af sagens omstændigheder finder Klagenævnet ikke anledning til at pålægge indklagede at gennemføre et eventuelt udbud på en bestemt måde.
22. Påstanden tages derfor ikke til følge.
.....
[Påstand 6 Klagenævnet skal påbyde indklagede, såfremt indklagede fastholder gennemførelse af arbejdet, at genudbyde og gennemføre nyt udbud i overensstemmelse med Udbudsdirektivet.] | N-051215
Air Liquide Danmark | 17+K13 | KNL2-6.1.p4-impl
RC1-2.6.2-impl | 17. Ad påstand 20 Det EU-udbud, som klagen vedrører, blev afsluttet i forbindelse med, at de indklagede den 19. maj 2005 besluttede at indgå kontrakt med Linde Gas Therapeutics AGA A/S og derefter den følgende tid indgik kontrakt med denne tilbudsgiver. Udbudet er derfor på nuværende tidspunkt afsluttet, og det har derfor ingen mening, at Klagenævnet pålægger de indklagede »at annullere udbudet«. Klagenævnet afviser derfor denne påstand.
.....
K13. Påstand 20 og 21 afvises.
[Påstand 20 Klagenævnet skal påbyde de indklagede inden for en frist fastsat af Klagenævnet at annullere udbudet.] | N-050503
Taxa Stig | 3-7+K2 | KNL2-1-impl
RC1-2.1.b
RC1-2.6.1
RC1-2.6.2-impl
RC1-2.7 | 3. Indklagede handlede som konstateret ved kendelserne af 8. april 2003 og 28. april 2003 i strid med EU-udbudsretten ved at indgå kontrakten med Falcks Redningskorps A/S uden forinden at gennemføre EU-udbud. Det, som Klagenævnet herefter skal tage stilling til, er, om der i tiden efter, at Klagenævnet ved kendelserne af 8. april 2003 og 28. april 2003 havde konstateret denne overtrædelse, efter EU-udbudsreglerne påhvilede indklagede en pligt til at opsige kontrakten med Falcks Redningskorps A/S og derefter gennemføre EU-udbud.
4. Kontrollen med, at EU-udbudsreglerne i Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet bliver håndhævet i de enkelte medlemslande, er i et vist omfang reguleret af EUudbudsretten, jf. Direktiv 89/665/EØF (Kontroldirektivet). Det fremgår imidlertid af Kontroldirektivet, at reguleringen af, hvorledes der nationalt skal reageres på overtrædelse af EU-udbudsretten, skal ske ved nationale regler, jf. særligt artikel 2, stk. 1, og det følger alene af Kontroldirektivet, at sådanne regler skal kunne sikre en effektiv håndhævelse af disse fællesskabsregler, jf. særligt artikel 2, stk. 7. I artikel 2, stk. 6, er det endvidere udtrykkeligt fastsat, at virkningen af beføjelserne efter artikel 2, stk. 1, på den kontrakt, der er indgået på grundlag af beslutningen om at indgå kontrakt, fastlægges efter national ret.
5. Det følger af det anførte, at der ikke efter det pågældende Kontroldirektiv påhviler en dansk ordregivende myndighed nogen pligt til i en situation, som den foreliggende, at opsige den indgåede kontrakt og derefter gennemføre et nyt udbud. Da der heller ikke efter EU-retten i øvrigt påhviler danske ordregivere en sådan pligt, tager Klagenævnet ikke påstand 2 til følge.
6. Klagenævnet bemærker herefter følgende vedrørende lov om Klagenævnet for Udbud:
7. Det nævnte Kontroldirektiv er i Danmark implementeret bl.a. ved lov om Klagenævnet for Udbud. Denne lov indeholder ikke nationale danske regler, som pålægger en offentlig ordregiver, som i forbindelse med indgåelsen af en kontrakt har handlet i strid med EU-udbudsreglerne, at opsige den indgåede kontrakt med henblik på at gennemføre et udbud eller et nyt udbud.
.....
K2. Påstand 2 tages ikke til følge.
[Påstand 2 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med EUudbudsretten ved efter, at Klagenævnets ved kendelserne af 8. april 2003 og 28. april 2003 havde konstateret, at indklagede havde handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet ved den 20. december 2001 at indgå kontrakt med Falck Redningskorps A/S om siddende patienttransport, ambulancekørsel og liggende patienttransport i Vestsjællands Amt for perioden 2002 – 2007, ikke at have opsagt kontrakten med Falcks Redningskorps A/S og derefter at have gennemført EU-udbud.] | N-990318
Seghers | 3-4 | U2-20.2.g
KNL1C1-5.1.s1.p4-impl
RU1-2.6.s2-impl | 5. Klagenævnet finder ikke grundlag for allerede på det foreliggende grundlag at fastslå, at indklagede er afskåret fra at indgå kontrakt om ombygning af de resterende ovnlinier (påstand nr. 5). For så vidt angår klagerens påstand om, at Klagenævnet skal fastslå, at indklagede er afskåret fra at indgå kontrakt med Ansaldo Vølund A/S om ombygning af ovnlinie 1–3 (påstand nr. 6) bemærkes, at dette spørgsmål ikke henhører under Klagenævnets kompetence.
6. Herefter, og da det af klageren i øvrigt anførte ikke kan føre til andet resultat, tages ingen del af klagen til følge.
[Påstandene: 5. Klagenævnet skal fastslå, at indklagede er afskåret fra at indgå kontrakt om ombygning af de resterende ovnlinier på indklagedes forbrændingsanlæg (ovnlinie 1–3) efter bestemmelsen i Forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivets artikel 20, stk. 2 litra g (indgåelse af kontrakt uden forudgående udbud om udførelse af gentagelsesarbejder).
6. Klagenævnet skal fastslå, at indklagede er afskåret fra at indgå kontrakt med Ansaldo Vølund A/S om ombygning af ovnlinie 1–3.] |
|
|
