EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CN0545
Case C-545/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ANAS SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
Case C-545/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ANAS SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
Case C-545/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ANAS SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
OJ C 452, 8.11.2021, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 31/08/2021
- Date lodged:
- 31/08/2021
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Italian
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Submits a preliminary question about 31995F1127(03) annex article 1
- Submits a preliminary question about 31995R2988 article 1 paragraph 2
- Submits a preliminary question about 32004L0018 article 45 paragraph 2 point (d)
- Submits a preliminary question about 32006R1083 article 70 paragraph 1 point (b)
- Submits a preliminary question about 32006R1083 article 98 paragraph 3
- Submits a preliminary question about 32006R1828 article 27 point (c)
- Submits a preliminary question about 32017L1371 article 3 paragraph 2 point (b)
- Link
|
8.11.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 452/16 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ANAS SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
(Case C-545/21)
(2021/C 452/15)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ANAS SpA
Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must Article 70(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, (1) Article 27(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006, (2) Article 1 of the PFI Convention referred to in the Council Act of 26 July 1995, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (3) and Article (3)(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (4) be interpreted as meaning that conduct which is likely, in the abstract, to favour an economic operator during a contract award procedure is always categorised as an ‘irregularity’ or as ‘fraud’, thus constituting a legal basis for the recovery of the aid, even when there is no complete proof that such conduct has actually taken place, or there is no complete proof that it was decisive in the selection of the beneficiary? |
|
2. |
Does Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC (5) preclude a legal provision such as Article 38(1)(f) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which does not allow the exclusion from a tender of an economic operator who has attempted to influence the decision-making process of the contracting authority, particularly when the attempt consisted of bribing certain members of the tender evaluation committee? |
|
3. |
If the answer to one or both of the above questions is in the affirmative, must the rules referred to always be interpreted as requiring the Member State to recover the aid and the Commission to make a 100 % financial correction, despite the fact that the aid was used for its intended purpose, for a project eligible for EU funding and which was actually implemented? |
|
4. |
If the answer to question 3 is negative, or that no recovery of the aid or 100 % financial correction is necessary, do the provisions referred to in question 1, and compliance with the principle of proportionality, make it possible to establish the recovery of the aid and the financial correction taking into account the financial damage actually caused to the general budget of the European Union? More specifically, in a situation such as the one at issue in these proceedings, can the ‘financial implications’, within the meaning of Article 98(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, be established on a flat-rate basis, by applying the criteria set out in the table under paragraph 2 of Commission Decision No 9527 of 19 December 2013? (6) |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (OJ 2006 L 371, p. 1).
(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
(4) Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29).
(5) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
(6) Commission Decision of 19 December 2013 on the setting out and approval of the guidelines for determining financial corrections to be made by the Commission to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement.
