(a)

Must Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that they have not been complied with if the legal protection to be afforded by national courts in disputes relating to tendering procedures governed by European law is impeded by the fact that conflicting decisions may arise under a system in which both administrative courts and civil courts may have jurisdiction with respect to the same decision and its consequences?

(b)

Is it permissible in this context for the administrative courts to be confined to forming an opinion and ruling on the tendering decision, and if so, why and/or under what conditions?

(c)

Is it permissible in this context for the Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Netherlands General Law on Administrative Law), which, as a rule, governs applications for access to the administrative courts, to exclude such applications in the case of decisions concerning the conclusion of a contract by the contracting authority with one of the tenderers, and if so, why and/or under what conditions?

(d)

Is the answer to Question 2 of relevance in this context?

(a)

Must Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Directive 89/665/EEC be interpreted as meaning that they have not been complied with if the only procedure for obtaining a rapid decision is characterised by the fact that it is in principle geared to a rapid mandatory measure, that lawyers have no right to exchange views, that [no] evidence is, as a rule, presented in other than written form and that statutory rules on evidence are not applicable?

(b)

If not, does this also apply if the decision does not lead to the final determination of the legal situation and does not form part of a decision-making process leading to such a final decision?

(c)

Does it make a difference in this context if the decision is binding only on the parties to the proceedings, even though other parties may have an interest?

(a)

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, must the contracting public authority be deemed liable in that regard, and if so, in what sense?

(b)

Does the same apply if the answer to that question is in the affirmative?

(c)

If that authority is required to pay damages, does Community law set criteria for determining and estimating those damages, and if so, what are they?

(d)

If the contracting public authority cannot be deemed liable, is it possible, under Community law, for some other person to be shown to be liable, and on what basis?