Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2004/284/14

Case C-363/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported by the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’

OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 7–7 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.11.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported by the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’

(Case C-363/04)

(2004/C 284/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of Culture and against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and against the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’ on the following questions:

(1)

Must Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report, indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to give a specific content to the document in which it requests a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold determined by application of a mathematical method having characteristics analogous to those of the mathematical method described in the grounds of this order?

(2)

If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it sufficient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovementioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum cost for carrying out the relevant works?
Top