EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0532
Case C-532/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/13/EEC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Article 1(1) and (3) — Access to review procedures — Article 2c — Time limits for applying for review — Calculation — Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)
Case C-532/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/13/EEC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Article 1(1) and (3) — Access to review procedures — Article 2c — Time limits for applying for review — Calculation — Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)
Case C-532/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/13/EEC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Article 1(1) and (3) — Access to review procedures — Article 2c — Time limits for applying for review — Calculation — Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)
OJ C 165, 19.4.2022, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 165, 19.4.2022, p. 12–13
(GA)
|
19.4.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 165/15 |
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti
(Case C-532/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/13/EEC - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Article 1(1) and (3) - Access to review procedures - Article 2c - Time limits for applying for review - Calculation - Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)
(2022/C 165/17)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Alstom Transport SA
Defendants: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1(1), fourth subparagraph, Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer for a contract may apply for review of a decision of the contracting entity declaring admissible, in the decision awarding that contract, the bid submitted by an unsuccessful tenderer may be calculated by using as a point of reference the date of receipt of that decision of the contracting authority by that successful tenderer, even if, at that date, that unsuccessful tenderer had not, or had not yet, applied for review of it. On the other hand, if, during the notification or publication of that decision, a summary of the relevant reasons for it, such as the information concerning the procedures for evaluating that tender, was not, in accordance with that Article 2c, brought to the knowledge of that successful tenderer, that time limit must be calculated by using as a point of reference the communication of such a summary to the same successful tenderer.