Communication: judgment No. 0532 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0532
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
3
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



19.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/15


Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

(Case C-532/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/13/EEC - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Article 1(1) and (3) - Access to review procedures - Article 2c - Time limits for applying for review - Calculation - Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)

(2022/C 165/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alstom Transport SA

Defendants: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1), fourth subparagraph, Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer for a contract may apply for review of a decision of the contracting entity declaring admissible, in the decision awarding that contract, the bid submitted by an unsuccessful tenderer may be calculated by using as a point of reference the date of receipt of that decision of the contracting authority by that successful tenderer, even if, at that date, that unsuccessful tenderer had not, or had not yet, applied for review of it. On the other hand, if, during the notification or publication of that decision, a summary of the relevant reasons for it, such as the information concerning the procedures for evaluating that tender, was not, in accordance with that Article 2c, brought to the knowledge of that successful tenderer, that time limit must be calculated by using as a point of reference the communication of such a summary to the same successful tenderer.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.