Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015CN0171

    Case C-171/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2015 — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others

    IO C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    29.6.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 213/16

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2015 — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others

    (Case C-171/15)

    (2015/C 213/26)

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Referring court

    Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant: Connexxion Taxi Services BV

    Respondents: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport), Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV

    Questions referred

    1

    (a)

    Does EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, preclude national law from obliging a contracting authority to assess, by application of the principle of proportionality, whether a tenderer which is guilty of grave professional misconduct must indeed be excluded?

    (b)

    Is it significant in this regard that a contracting authority has stated in the tender conditions that a tender to which a ground for exclusion applies must be set aside and is not to be eligible for further substantive assessment?

    2.

    If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative: does EU law preclude a situation in which the national courts fail to carry out an ‘unrestricted’ judicial review of an assessment conducted on the basis of the principle of proportionality, such as the assessment conducted by a contracting authority in the present case, but merely carry out a (‘marginal’) review as to whether the contracting authority could reasonably have come to the decision not to exclude a tenderer notwithstanding the fact that that tenderer was guilty of grave professional misconduct within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC?

    (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

    Top