EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CA0171
Case C-171/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) — Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Optional grounds of exclusion — Grave professional misconduct — National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality — Decisions of the contracting authorities — Directive 89/665/EEC — Judicial review)
Case C-171/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) — Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Optional grounds of exclusion — Grave professional misconduct — National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality — Decisions of the contracting authorities — Directive 89/665/EEC — Judicial review)
Case C-171/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) — Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Optional grounds of exclusion — Grave professional misconduct — National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality — Decisions of the contracting authorities — Directive 89/665/EEC — Judicial review)
OJ C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV
(Case C-171/15) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2) - Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Optional grounds of exclusion - Grave professional misconduct - National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality - Decisions of the contracting authorities - Directive 89/665/EEC - Judicial review))
(2017/C 046/03)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Connexxion Taxi Services BV
Defendants: Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of 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, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a contracting authority to assess, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, whether it is in fact appropriate to exclude from a public contract a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct. |
|
2. |
The provisions of Directive 2004/18, in particular those of Article 2 of and Annex VII A, point 17, thereto, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency which derives from that, must be interpreted as precluding a contracting authority from deciding to award a public contract to a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct on the ground that the exclusion of that tenderer from the award procedure would be contrary to the principle of proportionality, even though, according to the tender conditions of that contract, a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct must necessarily be excluded, without consideration of the proportionality of that sanction. |