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 C2007/235/13

Case C-300/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

(Case C-300/07)

(2007/C 235/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik

Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

Questions referred

1.

(a)

Is the requirement of ‘financing by the State’ as referred to in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) 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 (1) to be interpreted as including a situation where the State prescribes membership of a sickness insurance fund and the duty to pay contributions — whose amount is dependent on income — to the relevant sickness insurance fund, which sets the contribution rate, but the sickness insurance funds are linked to one another by a system of solidarity-based financing described in greater detail in the grounds hereof and the satisfaction of the liabilities of each individual sickness insurance fund is guaranteed?

(b)

Is the requirement referred to in the second alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) that the body be ‘subject to management supervision by those bodies’ to be interpreted to the effect that State legal supervision which concerns current or future transactions — with other possible means of State intervention described in the grounds hereof — is sufficient to satisfy that requirement?

2.

If the first question — in part (a) or (b) — is answered in the affirmative, are letters (c) and (d) of Article 1(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of goods which are individually manufactured and tailored, in terms of their form, to meet the needs of the particular customer, and on whose use the individual customer is to be advised, are to be classified as ‘supply contracts’ or as ‘service contracts’? Is only the value of the particular services to be taken into consideration?

3.

If the provision referred to in the second question is to be or could be classified as a ‘service’, is Article 1(4) of the directive — as distinct from a ‘framework agreement’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the directive — to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘service concession’ also includes the award of a contract in the form where

—

the decision on whether and in what cases the contractor is awarded specific contracts is taken not by the contracting authority, but by third parties,

—

the contractor is paid by the contracting authority because by law only that authority is liable to pay remuneration and is required to provide the service to third parties, and

—

the contractor does not have to provide, or offer as available, services of any kind prior to their use by the third parties?

(1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.

Top