This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
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
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
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? |