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 62022CN0683

Case C-683/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 4 November 2022 — Adusbef — Associazione difesa utenti servizi bancari e finanziari and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri and Others

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.1.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 4 November 2022 — Adusbef — Associazione difesa utenti servizi bancari e finanziari and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri and Others

(Case C-683/22)

(2023/C 35/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adusbef — Associazione difesa utenti servizi bancari e finanziari, AIPE — Associazione Italiana Pressure Equipment, Confimi Industria Abruzzo — Associazione dell’industria manifatturiera e dell’impresa privata dell’Abruzzo

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità sostenibili, DIPE — Dipartimento programmazione e coordinamento della politica economica, Autorità di regolazione dei trasporti, Corte dei Conti, Avvocatura Generale dello Stato

Questions referred

1.

Would it be inconsistent with [EU] law to interpret the national legislation as meaning that the awarding authority is entitled to conduct a procedure to modify an existing motorway concession, with respect to the entities concerned and the substance, or to renegotiate such a concession, without assessing and expressing a position on the obligation to launch a public procurement procedure?

2.

Would it be inconsistent with [EU] law to interpret the national legislation as meaning that the awarding authority is entitled to conduct a procedure to modify an existing motorway concession, with respect to the entities concerned and the substance, or to renegotiate such a concession, without assessing the reliability of a concessionaire that is guilty of a serious failure to fulfil its obligations?

3.

Where an infringement of the principle of public procurement is established and/or the unreliability of the holder of a motorway concession is established, does [EU] law impose an obligation to terminate the relationship?
Top