| | 32004L0018: c3-55.3State aid    
[See also ECT-87-88]| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 55.3 | | 3. Where a contracting authority establishes that a tender is abnormally low because the tenderer has obtained State aid, the tender can be rejected on that ground alone only after consultation with the tenderer where the latter is unable to prove, within a sufficient time limit fixed by the contracting authority, that the aid in question was granted legally. Where the contracting authority rejects a tender in these circumstances, it shall inform the Commission of that fact. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 57.3 | | 3. Where a contracting entity establishes that a tender is abnormally low because the tenderer has obtained State aid, the tender can be rejected on that ground alone only after consultation with the tenderer where the latter is unable to prove, within a sufficient time limit fixed by the contracting entity, that the aid in question was granted legally. Where the contracting entity rejects a tender in these circumstances, it shall inform the Commission of that fact. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 30.4.3 | | If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must communicate to the Commission the rejection of tenders which it consider to be too low. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 27.3 | | If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must communicate to the Commission the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 37.3 | | If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must communicate to the Commission the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 34.5.3 | | Contracting entities may reject tenders which are abnormally low owing to the receipt of State aid only if they have consulted the tenderer and if the tenderer has been unable to show that the aid in question has been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 93 (3) of the EEC Treaty or has received the Commission's approval. Contracting entities which reject a tender under these circumstances shall inform the Commission thereof. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 29.5.3 | | If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the authority awarding contracts must justify to the advisory committee set up by the council decision of 26 July 1971 (6) the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low. | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.20=W1-29.5.3 | | If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must communicate to the Commission the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 25.7 | | 7. If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must justify the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low to the advisory committee for public contracts. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 27.3 | | Contracting entities may reject tenders which are abnormally low owing to the receipt of State aid only if they have consulted the tenderer and if the tenderer has not been able to show that the aid in question has been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 93 (3) of the Treaty or has received the Commission's approval. Contracting entities which reject a tender under these circumstances shall inform the Commission thereof. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-295/89
Impresa Donà | na | W1-29.1-2
W1-29.3 | [In this judgment the Court' s ruling is in the same terms as those of the judgment in Case 103/88] | 103/88
Constanzo | 19-20
32 | W1-29.1-2
W1-29.3 | The answer to the second part of the third question must therefore be that Article 29(5) of Council Directive 71/305 prohibits Member States from introducing provisions which require the automatic exclusion from procedures for the award of public works contracts of certain tenders determined according to a mathematical criterion, instead of obliging the awarding authority to apply the examination procedure laid down in the Directive, giving the tenderer an opportunity to furnish explanations.
With regard to the first question, it should be observed that it was in order to enable tenderers submitting exceptionally low tenders to demonstrate that those tenders are genuine ones that the Council, in Article 29(5) of Directive 71/305, laid down a precise, detailed procedure for the examination of tenders which appear to be abnormally low . That aim would be jeopardized if Member States were able, when implementing Article 29(5) of the directive, to depart from it to any material extent.
With specific regard to Article 29(5) of Directive 71/305, it is apparent from the discussion of the first question that it is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be relied upon by an individual against the State. An individual may therefore plead that provision before the national courts and, as is clear from the foregoing, all organs of the administration, including decentralized authorities such as municipalities, are obliged to apply it. | 31/87
Beentjes | 38 + 40-44 | W1-20
W1-26.1.a-b
W1-26.1.c-e
W1-26.2
W1-29.1
W1-29.2
W1-29.3
W1-29.4
W1-29.5.1-2
W1-29.5.3
ECT-249 [ex 189] | 38 The third question seeks in substance to establish whether Articles 20, 26 and 29 of Directive 71/305 may be relied upon by individuals before the national courts.
40 Furthermore, the Court has consistently held (see most recently the judgment of 26 February 1986 in Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Health Authority (( 1986 )) ECR 723 ) that where the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied on by individuals against the State where that State fails to implement the directive in national law within the prescribed period or where it fails to implement the directive correctly.
41 It is therefore necessary to consider whether the provisions of Directive 71/305 in question are, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, unconditional and sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual against the State.
42 As the Court held in its judgment of 10 February 1982 in Case 76/81 Transporoute v Minister for Public Works (( 1982 )) ECR 417, in relation to Article 29, the directive' s rules regarding participation and advertising are intended to protect tenderers against arbitrariness on the part of the authority awarding contracts.
43 To this end, as has been stated in relation to the reply to the second question, the rules in question provide inter alia that in checking the suitability of contractors the awarding authorities must apply criteria of economic and financial standing and technical knowledge and ability, and that the contract is to be awarded either solely on the basis of the lowest price or on the basis of several criteria relating to the tender. They also set out the requirements regarding publication of the criteria adopted by the awarding authorities and the references to be produced. Since no specific implementing measure is necessary for compliance with these requirements, the resulting obligations for the Member States are therefore unconditional and sufficiently precise.
44 In reply to the third question it should therefore be stated that the provisions of Articles 20, 26 and 29 of Directive 71/305 may be relied on by an individual before the national courts. | 76/81
Transporoute | 18 | W1-29.5.3 | The reply to the second question must therefore be that when in the opinion of the authority awarding a public works contract a tenderer ' s offer is obviously abnormally low in relation to the transaction article 29 (5) of directive 71/305 requires the authority to seek from the tenderer , before coming to a decision as to the award of the contract , an explanation of his prices or to inform the tenderer which of his tenders appear to be abnormal , and to allow him a reasonable time within which to submit further details. |
|
|
