This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CA0285
Case C-285/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(1) — Temporal application — Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided — Limits — Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards — In-house transaction — Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)
Case C-285/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(1) — Temporal application — Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided — Limits — Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards — In-house transaction — Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)
Case C-285/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(1) — Temporal application — Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided — Limits — Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards — In-house transaction — Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)
OJ C 413, 9.12.2019, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 413/15 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija
(Case C-285/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12(1) - Temporal application - Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided - Limits - Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards - In-house transaction - Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)
(2019/C 413/16)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija
Other parties: UAB ‘Irgita’, UAB ‘Kauno švara’
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
A situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a public contract has been awarded by a contracting authority to a legal person over which it exercises a control similar to the control it exercises over its own departments, as part of a procedure initiated when Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts was still in force and which led to the conclusion of a contract after the date of repeal of that directive, namely 18 April 2016, falls within the scope 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, where the contracting authority definitively resolved the question of whether it was obliged to initiate a prior competition procedure for the award of a public contract after that date. |
|
2. |
Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law whereby a Member State imposes a requirement that the conclusion of an in-house transaction should be subject, inter alia, to the condition that public procurement does not ensure that the quality of the services performed, their availability or their continuity can be guaranteed, 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. |
|
3. |
Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24, read in the light of the principle of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions to which the Member States subject the conclusion of in-house transactions must be made known by means of precise and clear rules of the substantive law governing public procurement, which must be sufficiently accessible, precise and predictable in their application to avoid any risk of arbitrariness, which it is, in this case, for the referring court to determine. |
|
4. |
The conclusion of an in-house transaction which satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 12(1(a) to (c) of Directive 2014/24 is not as such compatible with EU law. |