This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CA0355
Case C-355/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the area of public procurement — Article 1(3) — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 2a(2) — Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ — Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision)
Case C-355/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the area of public procurement — Article 1(3) — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 2a(2) — Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ — Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision)
Case C-355/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the area of public procurement — Article 1(3) — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 2a(2) — Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ — Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision)
OJ C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 53/14 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien
(Case C-355/15) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the area of public procurement - Article 1(3) - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 2a(2) - Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ - Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision))
(2017/C 053/16)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Verwaltungsgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH
Defendants: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a tenderer who has been excluded from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from being refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract concerned and of the conclusion of the contract where only that unsuccessful tenderer and the successful tenderer submitted bids and the unsuccessful tenderer maintains that the successful tenderer’s bid should also have been rejected.