1.

Does the procedure for granting an interlocutory injunction provided for in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU, (2) which is also provided for at national level in Austria in proceedings before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), in which it is also possible to bring about, for example, a temporary prohibition on the conclusion of framework agreements or on the conclusion of supply contracts, constitute a dispute concerning a civil and commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (3) (Brussels I Regulation)? Does such a procedure for granting an interlocutory injunction as referred to in the preceding question at least constitute a civil matter pursuant to Article 81(1) TFEU? Is the procedure for granting interlocutory injunctions pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, a procedure for granting provisional measures pursuant to Article 35 of the Brussels I Regulation?

2.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the principle of equivalence to be interpreted as conferring subjective rights on individuals against the Member State and as precluding the application of Austrian national rules under which the court must, before disposing of an application for an interlocutory injunction, as provided for in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, determine the type of contract award procedure and the (estimated) contract value as well as the total number of contested, separately contestable decisions from specific award procedures and also, if necessary, the lots from a specific award procedure, in order then to issue, if necessary, an order for regularisation via the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the court for the purpose of recovering fees and, in the event of non-payment of fees, to prescribe — before or no later than at the same time as rejecting an application for an interlocutory injunction due to failure to pay fees subsequently demanded — the procedural fees via the chamber of the court competent to deal with the application for review, failing which a loss of entitlement would ensue, when in (other types of) civil cases in Austria, such as, for example, in the case of actions seeking compensation or injunctions for infringements of competition law, non-payment of fees does not otherwise preclude the disposal of an application for an interlocutory injunction lodged in conjunction with an action, irrespective of the issue of the fees payable for judicial protection, whatever the amount, and, moreover, non-payment of flat-rate fees does not, in principle, preclude the disposal of an application for an interlocutory injunction lodged separately from an action in proceedings before the civil courts; and, by way of further comparison, in Austria, non-payment of appeal fees for bringing appeals against administrative decisions or for appeals or appeals on points of law against decisions of administrative courts to the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court) or the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court) does not lead to the dismissal of an appeal owing to non-payment of fees and, for example, does not lead to applications for the granting of suspensive effect being disposed of only by way of their rejection in such appeals or appeals on points of law?

2.1.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the principle of equivalence to be interpreted as precluding the application of Austrian national rules under which, prior to the disposal of an application for an interlocutory injunction as provided for in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, an order for regularisation of fees is to be made by the presiding judge of the chamber, sitting as a single judge, in the event of insufficient payment of flat-rate fees, and that single judge must reject the application for an interlocutory injunction in the event of non-payment of fees, when otherwise in civil actions in Austria, under the Gerichtsgebührengesetz (Law on court fees), no additional flat-rate court fees are to be paid, in principle, for an application for an interlocutory injunction lodged together with an action, on top of the fees for the action at first instance, and, moreover, with regard to applications for the granting of suspensive effect which are lodged together with an appeal against an administrative decision to an administrative court, an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Administrative Court or an appeal to the Constitutional Court, and which, from a functional point of view, have the same or a similar objective in terms of judicial protection as an application for an interlocutory injunction, no separate fees must be paid for such ancillary applications for the granting of suspensive effect?

3.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the requirement under Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/24/EU, (4) to take, at the earliest opportunity and by way of interlocutory procedures, interim measures with the aim of correcting the alleged infringement or preventing further damage to the interests concerned, to be interpreted as meaning that that requirement to act without undue delay confers a subjective right to have a decision taken without undue delay on an application for an interlocutory injunction and that it precludes the application of Austrian national rules under which, even in the case of contract award procedures conducted in a non-transparent manner, the court must, before disposing of an application for an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing further procurement by the contracting authority, determine the type of award procedure and the (estimated) contract value as well as the total number of separately contestable decisions contested or to be contested from specific award procedures and also, if necessary, the lots from a specific award procedure, even if those elements do not bear any relevance to the court’s decision, in order then to issue, if necessary, an order for regularisation via the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the court for the purpose of recovering fees and, in the event of non-payment of fees, to prescribe — before or no later than at the same time as rejecting an application for an interlocutory injunction due to failure to pay fees subsequently demanded — the procedural fees via the chamber of the court competent to rule on the application for review, failing which a loss of entitlement vis-à-vis the applicant would ensue?

4.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the right to a fair trial before a court or tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter (5) to be interpreted as conferring subjective rights on individuals and as precluding the application of Austrian national rules under which, even in the case of contract award procedures conducted in a non-transparent manner, the court must, before disposing of an application for an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing further procurement by the contracting authority, determine the type of award procedure and the (estimated) contract value as well as the total number of contested, separately contestable decisions from specific award procedures and also, if necessary, the lots from a specific award procedure, even if those elements do not bear any relevance to the court’s decision, in order then to issue, if necessary, an order for regularisation via the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the court for the purpose of recovering fees and, in the event of non-payment of fees, to prescribe — before or no later than at the same time as rejecting an application for an interlocutory injunction due to failure to pay fees subsequently demanded — the procedural fees via the chamber of the court competent to rule on the application for review, failing which a loss of entitlement vis-à-vis the applicant would ensue?

5.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the principle of equivalence to be interpreted as conferring on individuals subjective rights against the Member State and as precluding the application of Austrian national rules under which, in the event of non-payment of flat-rate fees for an application for an interlocutory injunction within the meaning of Directive 89/665, as amended, (only) a chamber of an administrative court, as a judicial body, must prescribe flat-rate fees (leading to curtailed possibilities of judicial protection for the party liable to pay the fees) when fees for actions, interlocutory injunctions and appeals in civil court proceedings are otherwise prescribed, in the event of non-payment, by an administrative decision in accordance with the Gerichtliches Einbringungsgesetz (Law on judicial collection) and, in administrative law, appeal fees for appeals to an administrative court or to the Constitutional Court or for appeals on points of law to the Supreme Administrative Court are as a general rule prescribed, in the event of non-payment of those fees, by way of a notice of a tax authority (notice prescribing fees), against which an appeal can always be brought before an administrative court and then, in turn, an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Administrative Court or an appeal before the Constitutional Court?

6.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a framework agreement with a single economic operator pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2014/24 constitutes the conclusion of a contract pursuant to Article 2a(2) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23?

6.1.

Are the words ‘contracts based on that agreement’ in Article 33(3) of Directive 2014/24 to be interpreted as meaning that a contract based on the framework agreement exists where the contracting authority awards an individual contract expressly on the basis of the framework agreement concluded? Or is the cited phrase ‘contracts based on that agreement’ to be interpreted as meaning that if the total quantity covered by the framework agreement within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-216/17, (6) paragraph 64, has already been exhausted, there is no longer a contract based on the framework agreement originally concluded?

7.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the right to a fair trial before a court or tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter to be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule under which the contracting authority designated in the procurement dispute must, in the proceedings for the granting of an interlocutory injunction, provide all the information required and produce all the documents required — whereby failure to do so in either respect may lead to a default decision to its detriment — if the officials or employees of that contracting authority who are required to provide that information on behalf of the contracting authority may thereby be exposed to the risk of possibly even having to incriminate themselves under criminal law if they provide the information or produce the documents?

8.

Taking account also of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter, and having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the requirement under Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/24, that procurement review procedures must, in particular, be conducted effectively, to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions confer subjective rights and preclude the application of national rules under which the party seeking judicial protection by way of an application for an interlocutory injunction is required to specify in his or her application for an interlocutory injunction the specific contract award procedure and the specific decision of a contracting authority, even where, in the case of award procedures without prior publication of a contract notice, that applicant will generally not know how many non-transparent award procedures the contracting authority has conducted and how many award decisions have already been taken in the non-transparent award procedures?

9.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the requirement of a fair trial before a court or tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter to be interpreted as meaning that that provision confers subjective rights and precludes the application of national rules under which the party seeking judicial protection by way of an application for review is required to specify in his or her application for an interlocutory [injunction] the specific contract award procedure and the specific contested, separately contestable decision of a contracting authority, even if, in the case of award procedures without prior publication of a contract notice that are non-transparent for that applicant, he or she cannot generally know how many non-transparent award procedures the contracting authority has conducted and how many award decisions have already been taken in the non-transparent award procedures?

10.

Having regard to the other provisions of EU law, is the requirement of a fair trial before a court or tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter to be interpreted as meaning that that provision confers subjective rights and precludes the application of national rules under which the party seeking judicial protection by way of an application for an interlocutory injunction is required to pay flat-rate fees in an amount which he or she cannot ascertain in advance, because, in the case of contract award procedures without prior publication of a contract notice that are non-transparent for that applicant, he or she cannot generally know whether non-transparent award procedures have been conducted by the contracting authority and, if so, the number of such procedures and their estimated contract value and how many separately contestable award decisions have already been taken in the non-transparent award procedures?