17.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/3

1.

Is Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/18 (1) to be interpreted as permitting a Member State not to apply the directive, following its accession to the European Union, if it has the benefit of a finance agreement concluded with the European Investment Bank which was signed before the accession and under which specific requirements imposed by the lending institution, such as those at issue in the present case, which are more restrictive than those laid down by the directive, are applied to public contracts to be awarded?

2.

Is Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure under national law, such as O.U.G. No 72/2007 (Decree Law No 72/2007), which provides for the application of the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement, by way of derogation from the legislative measure by which the directive was transposed into national law, namely, in the present case, O.U.G. No 34/2006 (Decree Law No 34/2006), on grounds such as those set out in the explanatory memorandum, for the purpose of compliance with the finance agreement concluded prior to accession?

3.

On a proper interpretation of Article 9(5) and Article 60(a) of Regulation No 1083/2006, (2) may such a public contract, concluded in compliance with the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement and with national law, be regarded as consistent with EU law and eligible for European non-reimbursable financial support, granted retrospectively?

4.

In the event that Question 3 is answered in the negative, if such a public contract was nonetheless considered to be consistent with EU law at the time the check was carried out to verify compliance with the qualification requirements for the Programului operațional sectorial ‘Transport’ 2007-2013 (Sectoral Operational Programme ‘Transport’ 2007 2013), does such an alleged breach of EU public procurement law (determination of certain pre-selection criteria for the tenderers which are similar to those set out in the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement and more restrictive than those laid down in Directive 2004/18 — as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the present order for reference) constitute an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of Regulation No 1083/2006, giving rise to an obligation on the part of the Member State concerned to make a financial correction/percentage reduction pursuant to Article 98(2) of the regulation?