| European Union Cases |
Ref
|
Lianakis
& Ors v Dimos Alexandroupolis & Ors
Under Article 53, award criteria that is " essentially
linked to the evaluation of the tenderers' ability to
perform the contract in question", is not permitted
(this process is governed by art 44-52 of the directive).
Judgement indicate that it is not possible to consider
the relevant likelihood of performance as an award criterion
There is an explicit obligation to state the award criteria
in advance and this includes any sub-criteria. |
|
Alcatel
Austria AG & Ors v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft
und Verkehr
The Austrian Bundesministerium awarded a contract to Kapsch,
the contract was signed on the same day that it was awarded.
The question concerned whether a member state has to ensure
that an applicant has a chance to have the decision annulled.
Held by the ECJ that there had to be sufficient period,
a standstill period, for an aggrieved provider to challenge
the award criteria before a contract is entered into.
|
|
|
Concordia
Bus Finland Oy Ab v Helsingin kaupunki
Environmental considerations are legitimate award
criteria so long as they are linked to the subject matter
of the contract. They must also be "specific and quantifiable".
Award criteria must not give the authority "unrestricted
freedom of choice" as was stated in the Beentjes case.
It was alleged that only gas powered buses (of which
only a few companies existed in Finland - one of which
was the in house company) could meet the environmental
criterion, however as other award criteria was included
and thus it was still possible for a non-gas powered
bus to win the award and thus there was no infringement
on the equal treatment principle
|
|
EVN
v Republic of Austria
Reliability can be used as an award criterion so long
as it is linked to the reliability issue in a proportionate
and direct way. It is only permitted to use award criterion
which is accompanied by requirements which allow the award
criterion to be verified, this is due to the principles
of transparency and equal treatment. |
|
Sintesi
SpA v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici
The choice under Article 30 of the works directive , choice
between lowest price and MEAT, can not be limited by a
national rule. |
|
SIAC
Construction v Mayo County Council
It is acceptable to assess tenders by considering the
likely actual cost, as a factor relating to a factual
matter that will not be known until after the award does
not in itself constitute an infringment. |
Case C-19/00 |
|
ATI
EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia
SpA and Others
The allocation of points amongst sub-criteria, which
has been set out in advance, is lawful in principle
so long as it adheres to certain conditions. Award criteria
can not be changed during the procedure if the change
would be an infringement of EC law. (see also EVN v
Rep of Austria where the change would be an infringement
of transparency and equal treatment). Also, as per Concordia
bus, the provisions in the Utilities Directive should
be interpreted as in the same way as the Public Sector
procurement Directives, in situations where the wording
is substantially the same.
|
|
| Commission
v Germany |
C-271/08 |
| Commission
of the European Communities v French Republic [2004] ECR
1-9845 |
|
| Stadt
Halle & RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Thermische Restabfall und Energierverwertungsanlage TREA
Leuna [2005] ECR I-1 |
|
| Telaustria
Verlags GmbH v Telekom Austria AG [2000] ECR 1-10745 |
|
| Commission
v Kingdom of Spain [2005] ECRI-139 |
|
| Stadt
Halle and RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA
Leuna |
|
| Coditel
Brabant SA v Commune d’Uccle and Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale |
|
| Brent
London Borough Council v Risk Management Partners |
|
| Teckal
SrL v Commune di Viano & Azienda Gas – Acqua Consorziale
(AGAC) di Reggio Emilia [1999] ECR I-8121 |
|
| SIAC
Construction Ltd v Mayo County Council [2001] ECR 1-7725 |
|
| Commission
of the European Communities v French Republic [2004] ECR
1-9845 |
|
| Telaustria
Verlags GmbH and Telefonadress GmbH v Telekom Austria
AG, joined party: Herold Business Data AG |
|
| McLaughlin
& Harvey Ltd v Department of Finance & Personnel
(No2) [2008] |
|
| Letting
International Ltd v London Borough of Newham [2008] |
|
| Jean
Auroux v Commune de Roanne [2007] |
|
| Carbotermo
SpA and Consorzio Alisei v Commune di Busto Arsizio and
AGESP SpA [2006] ECR I-4137 |
|
| Parking
Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen [2005] ECR I-88 |
|
| Impresa
Portuale di Cagliari Sri v Tirrenia di Navagazione SpA
|
|
| Commission
v Federal Republic of Germany |
|
| Sea
Srl v Comune di Ponte Nossa |
|
| Impresa
Lombardini v ANAS [2001] ECR I-9233 |
|
| ATI
EAC v ACTV Venezia [2005] |
|
| Commission
v Kingdom of Spain |
|
| Wall
AG v City of Frankfurt |
|
| Commission
v Federal Republic of Germany |
|
| Michaniki
AE v ESR (2008) |
|
| University
of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035 |
|
| Commission
v France Case [2001] ECR I-939 |
|
| Uniplex
(UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority (2010) |
|
| Universale-Bau
and Others |
|
| TQ3
Travel Solutions Belgium SA v The Commission [2005] |
|
| Commission
v CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA [2004] ECR I-3801 |
|
|
Impresa Portuale di Cagliari Srl v Tirrenia di Navagazione
SpA |
|
|
Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I-2043 |
|
| Pressetext
v Austria (2008) |
|
|
Commission v France [2004] ECR I-9845 |
|
| Renco
SpA v Council of the European Union [2003] ECR II-171 |
|
| Joined
Cases, Lombardini and Mantovani [2001] ECR I-9233 |
C-285/99
C-286/99
|
| Commission
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
('UNIX') [1995] |
|
| Commission of the European Communities v Ireland [1995] |
C-45/87
|
| Commission
of the European Communities v French Republic [2004] |
|
| CEC v Italy |
C-274/83
|
Joined
Cases Fabricom SA v État belge [2005]
|
|
Henry
Bros (Magherafelt) Ltd & Ors v Department of Education
for Northern Ireland [2008]
|
|
| Scott
v Belfast Education and Library Board [2007] |
|
| Commission
of the European Communities v French Republic |
|
|
Commission
of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark
Bridge over the "Storebaelt"
|
|
Gebroeders
Beentjes BV v The Kingdom of the Netherlands
Court defined what constituted a body to be classed as
part of the state. Held also that 'sufficient experience'
was an aspect of 'technical capacity' which was an express
criterion and as such under the directive the contracting
authority was free to set its own standard. The court
considered "social" conditions and decided that these
may also be taken into account so long as they are compatible
with the treaty. |
|
|
Chandler,
R v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
|
|
