This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CB0011
Case C-11/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 10(h) — Article 12(4) — Specific exclusions for service contracts — Civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services — Non-profit organisations or associations — Ordinary and emergency medical transport services — Regional legislation requiring priority to be given to recourse to a partnership between contracting authorities — Freedom of the Member States to choose how services are provided — Limits — Obligation to state reasons)
Case C-11/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 10(h) — Article 12(4) — Specific exclusions for service contracts — Civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services — Non-profit organisations or associations — Ordinary and emergency medical transport services — Regional legislation requiring priority to be given to recourse to a partnership between contracting authorities — Freedom of the Member States to choose how services are provided — Limits — Obligation to state reasons)
Case C-11/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 10(h) — Article 12(4) — Specific exclusions for service contracts — Civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services — Non-profit organisations or associations — Ordinary and emergency medical transport services — Regional legislation requiring priority to be given to recourse to a partnership between contracting authorities — Freedom of the Member States to choose how services are provided — Limits — Obligation to state reasons)
IO C 313, 21.9.2020, p. 4–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.9.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 313/4 |
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova
(Case C-11/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 10(h) - Article 12(4) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Ordinary and emergency medical transport services - Regional legislation requiring priority to be given to recourse to a partnership between contracting authorities - Freedom of the Member States to choose how services are provided - Limits - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 313/05)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Consiglio di Stato
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea
Respondent: Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova
Interveners: Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Regione Veneto, Croce Verde Servizi
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
Article 10(h) and Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a regional law that makes the award of a public contract conditional on a partnership between public bodies being unable to provide the ordinary medical transport service, provided that the choice made in favour of one means of providing services in particular, made at a stage prior to that of public procurement, has due regard to the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. |
|
2. |
Article 10(h) and Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24 do not preclude a regional law that requires a contracting authority to provide reasons for its decision to award the contract for the provision of ordinary patient transport services by way of a tendering procedure rather than by direct award of the contract by means of an agreement entered into with another contracting authority. |