A new European Dynamics challenge rejected: let's focus on admissibility of claims (T-553/11)

In its Judgment of 23 May 2014 in case T-553/11 European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB, the General Court (GC) has ruled on yet another challenge filed by European Dynamics (ED) against procurement decisions of the EU Institutions and, in this case, the European Central Bank (for previous episodes in the appeals saga, see here).

In this case, the legal framework applicable to the procurement is basically contained in Decision ECB/2007/5 of the ECB of 3 July 2007 laying down the rules on procurement. However, the issues discussed are fundamentally common to those under the EU procurement Directives, which makes the case generally relevant.

 

Generally, the challenges brought by ED concern the duty to state reasons and potential abuses of power by the contracting authorities and, with some small differences based on the specific content of the procurement decision appealed, they tend to be subjected to exactly the same legal tests (which tend to result in the dismissal of their appeals). In my view, this case is not materially different from the previous ones as those issues are concerned.

 

However, there is an element in this saga of cases that is often overlooked because it is purely procedural, which relates to the admissibility of the challenges themselves (as, oftentimes, ED is rather 'non-selective' or not sufficiently precise in the identification of the procurement decision subjected to appeal). In that regard, the Judgment in T-553/11 is interesting (?) in that it assesses two points: a) the admissibility of (independent) challenges against confirmatory decisions in internal appeal procedures, and b) the admissibility of claims requesting the annulment of all decisions related to the 'core' procurement decision subject to challenge.

 

(Independent) appeals against internal review confirmatory decisions In the first part of the Judgment, the GC engages in a rather lengthy discussion on the admissibility of a challenge against both the initial decision not to invite ED (as leading undertaking in a grouping) to submit an offer in a negotiated procedure and the subsequent decision of the procurement review body (PRB) to dismiss the internal appeal and confirm the initial decision. The GC clearly indicates that those are two separate decisions and that both are open to challenge. However, it immediately stresses that:

there is no need to specifically examine the legality of the decision of [the PRB], but [...] it is appropriate to conduct a review of the legality of the rejection of the consortium’s application taking into account all the reasons relied on during the procedure, bearing in mind that in public procurement, the obligation to state reasons pertaining to a decision may be fulfilled in several stages (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case T‑50/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission [2010] ECR II‑1071, paragraph 133 and the case-law cited, and judgment of 22 May 2012 in Case T‑6/10 Sviluppo Globale v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 29), and must be assessed in the light of information available to the applicant at the time of bringing the action (Case T‑183/00 Strabag Benelux v Council [2003] ECR II‑135, paragraph 58, and Case T‑4/01 Renco v Council [2003] ECR II‑171, paragraph 96) (T-553/11 at para 49, emphasis added).

Both parts of the reasoning on admissibility seem functionally contradictory, given that the individualisation or distinction between the decisions should make them amenable to different grounds for a challenge. However, the 'holistic' approach adopted by the GC comes to institute de facto a full review of the (content) of all decisions involved in a procurement process prior to the application for judicial review. 

 

Hence, the valuable message derived from this lengthy discussion is, in my view, that regardless of the number of formal decisions adopted in a procurement procedure and the possibility to challenge them separately, the reviewing court must take the content of all of them (ie the full procurement file, at least as regards that candidate or tenderer) into account when a challenge is actioned against a decision adopted at any stage of the process. However, this may not be particularly new and should not have been controversial, as it seems to derive rather plainly from the power to conduct full reviews of the findings in fact and in law in which a procurement decision is based.

 

Appeals against 'all decisions related' to the main challenged decisionIn my opinion, this discussion is very formalistic and, to a certain extent, unnecessary. It revolves around whether the claimant submits a valid challenge if it requests the annulment of 'all decisions related' to the main procurement decision object of the appeal. The argument against the admissibility of such (secondary) claim is that it is inespecific and, consequently, does not meet the requirements of precision that are common to most judicial review systems. In the reasoning of the GC

54 Heads of claim [...] that seek the annulment of acts related to challenged acts which are not identified must be declared inadmissible as a result of the lack of precision of their subject-matter (see, to that effect, order in Case T‑166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3991, paragraph 79).

55 That finding is not undermined by the fact that it has been held, first, that the identification of the contested act could be implicitly inferred from the indications contained in the application and from the argument therein as a whole and, secondly, that an action formally brought against an act that is part of a series of acts forming a whole could be regarded as directed also, so far as necessary, against the others (order in Case T‑320/09 Planet v Commission [2011] ECR II‑1673, paragraph 23). Indeed, such a deduction is impossible specifically when the arguments contained in the application manifestly lack clarity and precision (order in Case T‑64/96 Jorio v Council [1997] ECR II‑127, paragraph 35), as is the case in the present case (T-553/11 at paras 54-55, emphasis added).

Hence, in the case at hand, the GC dismisses the claim for annulment of  'all related decisions of the ECB'. However, materially, this may not have any effect on the final outcome of the process if the appeal is upheld. In this regard, it must be taken into consideration that, (possibly) differently from other areas of (contract) law, the remedies against the illegal conclusion of a public contract may or may not involve the annulment of the contract depending on the grounds on which the illegality is founded, and irrespective of the specific claims brought forward by the applicant.

 

In the specific case of the review of EU institutional procurement, this discussion may have some purpose, as Article 263 TFEU  does not expressly regulate the remedies available. However, more generally, outside the scope of the review of the procurement decisions of the EU Institutions, the Remedies Directive allows Member States to restrict the ineffectiveness (ie voidability?) of public contracts to certain very grave cases (see art 2d) so, other than in those cases (where ineffectiveness must be declared, even if it was not expressly required by the appellant, as a matter of direct effect and supremacy of the Remedies Directive itself), the ineffectiveness of those decisions may be barred by domestic rules, regardless of the content of the action exercised by the appellant.

 

In my view, given the possibility for Member States to balance public and private interests in their domestic rules concerned with the effectiveness of illegally awarded public contracts, in public procurement litigation, the annulment of 'all related decisions' or their preservation (with a consequent indemnification of damages and, if applicable, the imposition of fines) is a matter of determination of the adequate remedy by the review court and, consequently, the discussion on the admissibility of this head of claim remains fundamentally superfluous.

Parody and the protection of fundamental rights under EU law: No laughing matter? (C-201/13)

In his Opinion of 22 May 2014 in case C-201/13 Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds (once again, not available in English), AG Cruz Villalon has assessed the concept of 'parody' under Art 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/CE on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (Copyright Directive). 

The Opinion is interesting because it concerns the degree to which fundamental rights' protection needs to be taken into consideration (as a matter of EU law) when making the relevant determination of the extension of the 'parodic' exception to copyright in a civil procedure. 

This is one of the myriad of cases in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) will soon be concerned with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and, consequently, the proposals on the integration/coordination of these issues that the AG puts forward may be interesting beyond the scope of application of the Copyright Directive.

In the case at hand, a political party used a parody of a comic to criticise the then mayor of Ghent (Belgium). In the parodied copy, the name of the original author (Vandersteen) was included, with a reference that indicated that the current version was a "free adaptation" of the original work made by a second author (Fre) -- both designs are reproduced below, as they appear on AG Cruz Villalon's Opinion (original on the right).

 

The controversy basically derived from the fact that the parody had a discriminatory or racist content and, consequently, the heirs of the original author and the companies that currently hold the rights to the exploitation of his works tried to prevent such a use of Vandersteen's comic. The claim was technically framed as a challenge to the proper use of the materials as a parody, given that it was not the original work that was being parodied, but Ghent's mayor of the time. According to the claimants, that use would not be covered by the exception under Art 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/CE.

AG Cruz Villalon, anticipating potential criticisms to his Opinion on the interpretation of the concept of parody, establishes important limitations to the scope of his arguments, where he makes clear that they do not include any elements regarding the moral rights of the author, the "three-step" test that Art 5(5) of the Copyright Directive establishes as a balancing requirement between the exceptions therein regulated and the protected rights, or the caveat that Belgian law introduced to the fact that parody is only acceptable provided it is conducted "in observance of good manners".

After confirming that, in his view, the concept of 'parody' (for the purposes of the Copyright Directive) is an autonomous concept of EU Law (paras 32-39), the AG goes on to consider that "Parody is [...] structurally, 'imitation' and, functionally, 'burlesque'" (or mocking, para 48, own translation from Spanish), and provides a significant amount of details as to his interpretation of both these structural (paras 49-58) and functional (paras 59-70) requirements. In my view, the most interesting part of his Opinion concerns paras 71-88, where he engages in a discussion on the incidence of the protection of fundamental rights on the (acceptable) content of the parody. The difficult question to be answered is, basically, "To what extent can the interpretation of the scope of the exception for parody given by the civil judge be determined by the protection of fundamental rights?" (para 76, own translation from Spanish).

The AG approaches the issue both as a matter of principle and introducing an exception. As a matter of principle, the AG submits that "always under the assumption that parody effectively meets the requirements already mentioned, an interpretation of the notion of parody by the civil court should, as a matter of principle, favor the exercise of freedom of expression through this unique medium" (para 81, own translation from Spanish). However, given that freedom of expression is never unlimited, 

Considering the "presence" to be recognized to fundamental rights in the legal system as a whole, I understand that, in principle and from the narrow perspective of the concept of parody, a certain image cannot be excluded from this notion for the simple fact that the message is not shared by the author of the original work, or by the rejection that it may deserve from much of the public. Still, those deformations of the original work that, in the form or substance, convey a message radically contrary to the deepest convictions of society, and in which the European public space is ultimately built, and ultimately exists, should not be accepted as a parody, and the authors of the parodied work are entitled to enforce that restriction as well (para 85, own translation from Spanish, emphasis added).

Nonetheless, the final test proposed by the AG is rather mild and, in my view, is unnecessarily inconclusive, as he proposes the CJEU to find that "When interpreting the term 'parody', the civil court must be guided by the fundamental rights proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and proceed to the necessary balancing between those rights when the circumstances of the case at hand require".

I consider that the (self)restraint that AG Cruz Villalon shows in the final part of his Opinion in Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds is a clear indicator of the pusillanimous approach that we can expect the CJEU to adopt in cases like this one. Given that the concept of parody is a concept of EU law (for the purposed of the Copyright Directive, anyway) and that the CJEU holds the ultimate competence for the interpretation of the EU Charter [as coordinated with the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights per art 52(3) EUCFR] the AG could have been more aggressive.

In my view, the AG should have clearly proposed that the CJEU interpreted that the concept of parody does not include 'those deformations of the original work that, in the form or substance, convey a message radically contrary to the deepest convictions of society' and, in particular, those that are racist, xenophobic or, in any other way, attempt against cultural, religious and linguistic diversity as protected in Article 22 of the EU Charter. Such a finding would still require the domestic courts of the Member States to determine whether, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a given case, the intended parody is or not covered by the EU concept. However, the message would be much stronger and the CJEU would be effectively acting as a constitutional court for Europe, at least as the protection of the rights recognised in the EU Charter is concerned.

On the contrary, by deferring all judgment and providing no clear indication as to the way the balance is likely to tilt, the AG (and the CJEU if they follow the 'soft, self-restrained' approach in Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds) would once more be refusing to exercise their function as a constitutional court and, in my view, would indicate that all the fuss and complicated negotiations of the (prior involvement mechanism in order to authorise) accession of the EU to the European Convention of Human Rights would have been unnecessary and superficial, given their lack of commitment to a substantive and effective enforcement of the necessary protections of fundamental rights in the EU (for a critical assessment of the process and mechanisms involved in the accession, see the various contributions to Tzevelekos et al, The EU Accession to the ECHR).

From this perspective, I will be eagerly awaiting the CJEU's final ruling in Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds, although I must say that I do not hold high expectations and I would bet that they will follow the approach suggested by the AG (maybe including one or two 'strong' obiter dicta but) refusing to provide a clear indication of the way the balance of fundamental rights should tilt. 

Let's hope the wait is over soon.

The "new" principle of competition in Directive 2014/24: a new set of presumptions?

The adoption of Directive 2014/24 of 26 February 2014 has resulted in the consolidation of the principle of competition in Article 18. According to the wording of this provision: "The design of the procurement shall not be made with the intention of […] artificially narrowing competition. Competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators".

 

In my opinion, despite the positive aspects of the express recognition of the principle of competition in the new EU Directive, the inclusion of a subjective element and the reference to the prevention of corruption or the avoidance of conflicts of interest by establishing an irrebuttable presumption of competitive distorsion, raise many questions that are difficult to answer that may give rise to more litigation. In this post, I venture some further thoughts on this "new" principle of competition in Directive 2014/24 (for an initial reaction, see here; please bear in mind that this is a translation of a contribution to http://www.obcp.es/ soon to be published in Spanish, which justifies (?) the references to Spanish domestic law).

 

Explicit recognition of the principle of competition

 

Importantly, and unlike in Spanish national legislation on public procurement (art 1 of RDL 3/2011, of 14 November, approving the consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts: "This law aims to regulate public sector procurement in order to [...] ensure [...] an efficient use of funds [...] by [...] safeguarding free competition"); so far, the principle of competition in public procurement was only reflected somewhat partially and in a fractionated manner at EU law level, by means of both Directive2004/18 (and earlier versions of the procurement Directives that it consolidated) and the interpretative case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in cases such as Fracasso and Leitschutz (C-27/98, para 31 . "to meet the objective of developing effective competition in the area of public contracts"), Lombardini and Mantovani (C-285/99, para 76: "all the requirements imposed by Community law must unquestionably be complied with in the context of the various aspects of the national procedures for awarding public works contracts, which must moreover be applied in such a manner as to ensure compliance with the principles of free competition") and SECAP (Opinion of AG in C-147/06, para 29 "those directives pursue a limited direct aim, namely the coordination of procedures governed by the sectoral directives with a view to encouraging the development of effective competition in the field of public contracts", as endorsed by the CJEU in the Judgment in C-147/96, para 29: "assess tenders which are submitted to them under conditions of effective competition").

 

Additionally, the contours of the principle of competition were somewhat fuzzy and required a considerable interpretive effort to delineate the obligations derived therefrom (for further details, see A Sanchez Graells, "Competition and the Public Buyer Towards a More Competition - Oriented Procurement: The Principle of Competition Embedded in EC PublicProcurement Directives"). From this perspective, the explicit recognition of the principle of competition in the new EU directive is to be welcomed. However, the explicit formulation adopts the policy is problematic for at least two reasons.

 

Inclusion of a very problematic subjective element: can we "objectify" it?

As we have seen, Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 provides a formulation of the principle of competition in which the subjective or intentional element of any restriction of competition is emphasized: "The design of the procurement shall not be made with the intention of […] artificially narrowing competition" (emphasis added). This intentional element is common to different language versions of the Directive ("intención" in Spanish, "intention" in French, "intento" in Italian, "intuito" in Portuguese or "Absicht" in German), so it cannot be justified as a deficiency in translation or an error in the wording of the provision. However, the recitals of the directive do not provide any clarification and, ultimately, this provision opens the door to complex problems of identification and attribution of intentional elements in the field of public procurement—or, more generally, in administrative (economic) law.

In my opinion, this task is very complex, as it requires establishing the parameters by which a decision that often involves various individuals (and potentially several administrative bodies) is considered affected by an underpinning anticompetitive intent. In fact, I think that this task is virtually impossible, given that the traditional mechanisms of allocation of subjective factors in (administrative) disciplinary or criminal law are not applicable and very clearly require an "objectifying" reinterpretation of the intentional element in the provision.

The reasons for the "objectification" of the wording of Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 are multiple and derived mainly from the need for coordination of this new rule with some of its "functional neighbours". Firstly, such coordination should take into account the objective character of the restrictions of competition derived from the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and its interpretation by the CJEU. Indeed, the prohibitions in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (and their national counterparts, such as in Articles 1 and 2 of the Spanish Law 15/ 2007 of 3 July, on the defence of competition) apply in abstraction from any volitional element of the offending parties. A competitive restriction in the market automatically results in a violation of those prohibitive norms, irrespective of the intention with which market players have conducted the practice restrictive of competition.

 

Secondly, and in a more subtle but functionally relevant relationship, the objectification of the competition principle standard must be coordinated with the criminal law rules applicable to the criminal liability of legal entities—which establish (at least in Spain) a clearly objective and independent regime, disconnected from any subjective element of the specific individuals who have committed crimes or offences whose responsibility extends to legal persons (see Article 31bis.3 of the Spanish Criminal Code, as introduced by LO 5/2010, of June 22, amending the Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November, on the Criminal Code).

Therefore, the objectification of Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 seems the most appropriate functional solution—but, acknowledgedly, it can be seen as lying somewhat far away from a literal interpretation of the provision. Broadly speaking, in my opinion, this objectification of the principle should be carried out by establishing a rebuttable presumption of restrictive intent in cases where, in fact, the tendering procedure has been designed in a manner that is restrictive of competition.

The disproval of this rebuttable presumption would require the contracting authority or entity to justify the existence of objective, legitimate and proportionate reasons for the adoption of the criteria restrictive of competition (ie, to provide a plausible justification for the imposition of restrictive conditions of competition in tendering the contract, so as to exclude the plain and simple explanation that it was intended to restrict competition therewith). In other words, if it could be justified that a "reasonable and disinterested contracting entity" (meaning free from any intent to restrict competition) would have taken the same decision on the design of the tender in a form restrictive of competition, the presumption of restrictive intent would not be applicable and, ultimately, the tender would be compliant with Article 18 of Directive 2014/24. Obviously, this test requires further development (and I will devote some time to developing a more refined proposal in the coming months).

 

Linking distortions of competition and favouritism or corruption: a bidirectional and biunivocal relationship?

 

The second problematic aspect in the wording of Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 is, in my opinion, the establishment of a iuris et de iure presumption of competitive distortion in: "Competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly (sic) favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators".

 

This assumption raises a potential problem of (logical) "capture" of the interpreters of this rule, as they may be tempted to consider that in the absence of (undue!) favouritism or corruption, no restrictions on competition are contrary to the precept—that is, they can be inclined to decide not to apply the "residual" part of the prohibition and limit it exclusively to cases covered by the presumption. Additionally, while it is true that most cases of favouritism or corruption will result in a restriction of competition, this is not always necessarily the case. For example, in cases where the beneficiary of favouritism could be awarded the contract under competitive conditions, or in cases in which corrupt practices are added to previous restrictions of competition created by the bidders active in the market; it could be argued that there is no (independent) restriction competition and, therefore, that the presumption is unnecessary or unjustified.

In any case, the instances of favouritism included in the irrebuttable presumption would (also) be covered by the new rules relating to conflicts of interest envisaged in Article 24 of Directive 2014/24: "Member States shall ensure that contracting authorities take appropriate measures to effectively prevent, identify and remedy conflicts of interest arising in the conduct of procurement procedures so as to avoid any distortion of competition and to ensure equal treatment of all economic operators", and can even fit into one of the headings of mandatory exclusion of Article 57(1)(b) for corruption, as supplemented by the obligation to terminate the contract under Article 73(b).

Therefore, the establishment of the presumption of anticompetitive intent in cases of favouritism or discrimination is, in my opinion, unnecessary and may be counterproductive. Ultimately, I think that it will be necessary for the bodies responsible for the implementation of these provisions to clearly distinguish instances of corruption from those of (simple) restriction of competition and, in the latter scenario, apply the first part of the principle of competition in an "objectified" manner, as advocated above.

Conclusion

The consolidation of the principle of competition in Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 should be welcomed, but its wording requires two major adjustments designed to ensure functionality. On the one hand, it is necessary to objectify the interpretation and application of the provision and, in my opinion, this should be done by establishing a rebuttable presumption of competition restrictive intent. Moreover, the irrebuttable presumption of restriction of competition in cases of favouritism or corruption should be interpreted as not being exhaustive and should not prevent the widespread application of the (not necessarily residual) general test of competitive restraint in the absence of (clear) discrimination.

In any case, it should come as no surprise if the new Article 18 of Directive 2014/24 gives rise to a significant level of litigation.

When time limits result in a prohibition, the Commission cannot present its decisions as 'temporary authorisations' (T-198/12)

In its Judgment of 14 May 2014 in case T-198/12 Germany v Commission (Toy safety), the General Court of the European Union (GC) has established an interesting standard for the analysis of the criteria concerned with the imposition of time limits in the Commission's enforcement of Article 114 TFEU. In short, under Art 114(6) TFEU, despite the adoption of a harmonisation measure which has as its object the establishment and functioning of the internal market, and as long as it concerns health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, the Commission can authorise Member States to maintain (conflicting) national provisions on grounds of the major needs mentioned in Article 36 TFEU.

In the case at hand, Germany had requested authorisation to keep domestic rules that deviated from the new standards concerned with the presence of certain (toxic) metals in toys set by Directive 2009/48 on the safety of toys. Germany considered that the standards imposed by the new version of the toy safety directive where not supported by adequate scientific evidence and requested the Commission to authorise it to maintain the existing domestic standards, which had been developed on the basis of the previous version of the toy safety Directive 88/378/EEC.

 

The European Commission partly authorised the German measure and, for some substances, imposed a time restriction whereby the domestic standards could only be enforced until the approval of new EU standards or 21 July 2013, whatever came first. Germany challenged this aspect of the partial approval on two grounds: 1) that the Commission incurred in a contradiction when it imposed the time limitation on the authorisation, given that it had found that it was legitimate, justified and did not significantly restrict intra-EU trade in toys (and, hence, should be authorised without restrictions); and 2) that the specific time-limit imposed actually amounted to a prohibition, given that the date chosen by the Commission was fundamentally coincidental (or, as the Commission indicated during the procedure, diverged symbolically by one day) with the final date foreseen in Directive 2009/48 for the repeal of the pre-existing domestic standards.

 

The GC has upheld this point of Germany's appeal and, more importantly, has established the principle that the Commission cannot issue de facto prohibitions of domestic measures under the appearance of temporary authorisations, as that fundamentally infringes its duty to state reasons and motivate its decisions. It is interesting to stress that

Given that, on the one hand, the bioavailability limits set by Directive 88/378 should continue to apply until 20 July 2013 and, on the other hand, the maintenance of national provisions on lead is authorized only until 21 July 2013 (specifying that the difference between these two dates is merely symbolic), it should be noted, as the Federal Republic of Germany rightly points out, that the contested decision is equivalent, in terms of concrete results, to a negative decision--which, furthermore, the Commission has expressly acknowledged during the proceedings, as the institution has indicated in its decision that the [German] measure met the requirements of Article 114 TFEU, paragraphs 4 and 6 [...] It is clear, therefore, that the contested decision contains an internal contradiction that may hinder the correct understanding of the reasons on which it is based (T-198/12 at paras 64 and 65, own translation from Spanish).

This is an interesting case, given that the GC has focussed on the material or substantial elements of the Commission's Decision and its effects on the autonomy of the Member State to actually deviate from the harmonising measure after seeking approval uner Art 114 TFEU. Hopefully this will result in more clarity in the enforcement Decisions of the Commission in the future and will contribute to a more speedy revision of security standards when Member States challenge the scientific evidence used at EU level. 

Are future (lease) contracts covered by the EU public procurement directives? (C-213/13)

In his Opinion of 15 May 2014 in case C-213/13 Impresa Pizzarotti (not available in English, so the following discussion is based on my reading of the Spanish version), Advocate General Nils Wahl has addressed the tricky issue whether future lease contracts, or contracts for the lease of buildings that are yet to be constructed, are covered by the EU public procurement Directives (in particular, by Directive 2004/18, but the interpretation will remain relevant under the new Directive 2014/24, which scope has not changed as far as works contracts are concerned).

 

The factual background of the case is rather complicated as the Commune di Bari and the Italian Ministry of Justice kept changing the conditions of the financial arrangements concerned with the building and rental of Bari's new city of justice; but, as AG Wahl indicates in his Opinion, the legal issue to be addressed is whether transactions relating to future buildings may fall within the exception to the application of the rules on public contracts--as foreseen in Article 16(a) of Directive 2004/18 [or art 10(a) Dir 2014/24], which indicates that the Directive "shall not apply to public service contracts for: (a) the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon".

 

In his view, the exception in Art 16(a) Directive 2004/18 [and now art 10(a) Dir 2014/24] can under no circumstances be interpreted in a way that covers works which execution has not yet started (para 54). On the ultimate basis of the principles of the protection of the internal market's fundamental freedoms and the promotion of effective competition (para 56), AG Wahl clearly argues that

With respect to the exclusion relating to the acquisition or lease of real estate, understood in the broad sense, I believe that it can only refer to existing assets. Indeed, a tender under the application of the rules on public procurement will have little purpose when referred to the lease or sale of an existing and well determined bulding, which is inappropriate for a confrontation with others because of its unique character. Furthermore, it appears from some preparatory works that the exclusion of contracts for lease or purchase of real estate was initially motivated by the local and non cross-border nature of these contracts. However, given that the activities in question involve the future construction of real estate and, therefore, the execution of works, the tendering process and transparency required by these rules are not inappropriate at all and therefore should be applied. Further, in my view, the reference that the provisions in question make ​​to "other (immovable) property" should be understood in the sense that it relates to assets other than land and buildings, and not to goods whose construction has yet to be conducted. [...] In the event that a public administration chooses, within the framework of the installation of certain services, for a formula for the purchase or lease of a work to be constructed, this operation shall be subject to the procurement procedures established by the relevant regulation (Opinion in C-213/13 at paras 60 and 61, own translation from Spanish, references ommitted and emphasis added).

 

This reasoning must be shared, given the need to interpret the exclusions to the Directives in a restrictive manner (as the AG stresses in his Opinion, at para 58). Incidentally, it is also interesting to stress that in AG Wahl's Opinion, the fact that the aggregated consideration for the lease of the future building does not cover the costs of its construction is insufficient to alter any conclusion as to the existence of a works contracts that should have been tendered under the relevant EU rules (para 80).

 

In my view, this is an important case, as the adoption of the interpretation suggested by AG Wahl would come to limit the possibilities to exclude certain types of contracts that fall within the broad category of public-private cooperation from the remit of the procurement directives, and seems to put some pressure on the (increased) use of either design contests or full-fledged procurement procedures (probably, from now on, the competitive procedure with negotiation under art 29 dir 2014/24) when contracting authorities seek to have dedicated buildings constructed. Let's hope that the CJEU follows this Opinion.

Has Directive 2014/24 come too late for horizontal in-house provision? (C-15/13)

In its recent Judgment in case C-15/13 of 8 May 2014 Datenlotsen Informationssysteme, the CJEU has addressed a so-called 'horizontal' in-house provision of goods and rejected the proposal of AG Mengozzi to exclude it from the application of Directive 2004/18 (see comment here).

 

Indeed, the CJEU has ruled that

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18 (...) must be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the supply of products concluded between (i) a university which is a contracting authority and whose purchases of products and services are controlled by a German Federal State, and (ii) an undertaking under private law, owned by the Federation and by Federal States, including the abovementioned Federal State, constitutes a public contract for the purposes of that provision, and must therefore be subject to the public procurement rules laid down in that directive.

This surely is the most accurate interpretation of the current 'in-house' exception provision under Directive 2004/18 but arrives slightly too late in view of the fact that article 12(2) of Directive 2014/24 creates that exception. In my view, cases like this one indicate the problems of inter-temporal consistency of EU public procurement rules (and other EU Economic Law provisions more generally) and suggest that there may be scope for a revision of the current rules on the need to conclude cases such as this when new rules are in operation.

 

Germany may have transposed Directive 2014/24 by now and, in that case, the re-tendering of the contract would probably be completely unnecessary--leaving the challenger with a 'mere' right to financial compensation that may not amount to much more than the direct costs of participating in the tender. In such case, the interpretation provided by the CJEU would have come at a large cost and provide limited benefits.

 

In my view, this should be food for thought and the possibility to dismiss requests for a preliminary ruling when the EU rule to be interpreted becomes de facto obsolete should be considered in the future.