EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/048/16
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (Public service contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Award criteria — The economically most advantageous tender — Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice — Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice — Decision to apply weighting — Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (Public service contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Award criteria — The economically most advantageous tender — Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice — Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice — Decision to apply weighting — Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (Public service contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Award criteria — The economically most advantageous tender — Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice — Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice — Decision to apply weighting — Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)
OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 8–9
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.2.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 48/8 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Second Chamber)
of 24 November 2005
in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (1)
(Public service contracts - Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC - Award criteria - The economically most advantageous tender - Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice - Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice - Decision to apply weighting - Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)
(2006/C 48/16)
Language of the case: Italian
In Case C-331/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by Decision of 6 April 2004, received at the Court on 29 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors must be interpreted as meaning that Community law does not preclude a jury from attaching specific weight to the subheadings of an award criterion which are defined in advance, by dividing among those headings the points awarded for that criterion by the contracting authority when the contract documents or the contract notice were prepared, provided that that decision:
|
— |
does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice; |
|
— |
does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation; |
|
— |
was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers. |