How Long Does It Take To Correct Gracenote

Court of Justice, sec. III, September 30, 2010, proc. C-314/09

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) September 30, 2010 (*)

'Directive 89/665/EEC - Public contracts - Review procedures - Action for damages - Award unlawful - national rules on liability based on a presumption of guilt of the contracting authority "

In Case C-314/09,

concerning the request for a preliminary ruling under Article. 234 EC from Gerichtshof (Austria), by decision of 2 July 2009, received on 7 August 2009 in the Stadt Graz

against

Strabag AG,

Teerag- Asdag AG,

Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH,

with party:

Land Steiermark,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed. K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, Mr. E. Juhász, G. Arestis, T. and D. von Danwitz Šváby, giudici,

avvocato generale: sig.ra V. Trstenjak

cancelliere: sig. K. Malacek, amministratore

vista la fase scritta del procedimento e in seguito all’udienza del 24 giugno 2010,

considerate le osservazioni presentate:

• per la Stadt Graz, dall’avv. K. Kocher, Rechtsanwalt;
• per la Strabag AG, la Teerag-Asdag AG e la Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH, dall’avv. W. Mecenovic, Rechtsanwalt;
• per il Land Steiermark, dall’avv. A.R. Lerchbaumer, Rechtsanwalt
• the Austrian Government, by. M. Fruhmann, acting as Agent,
• for the European Commission, by D. B. Schima, C. Zadra, acting as Agents,
  
  
  
  
  having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to judge the case without an opinion

gives the following

Judgement

a request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles. 1 No 1 and 2 nos. 1 bed. c) and 7 of Council Directive of 21 December 1989, 89/665/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures concerning the award of public supply and public works ( OJ L 395, p.. 33), as amended by Council Directive of 18 June 1992, 92/50/EEC (OJ L 209, p. 1. hereinafter "Directive 89/665").

2 The reference was made in a dispute between the City of Graz [City of Graz (Austria)], by one hand, and Strabag AG, the AG and Teerag-Asdag Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH (together referred to as' the company Strabag and Others) on the other, as a result of custody unlawful for a public contract by of these municipalities.

legal framework

Union law

3 I 'considering' third and sixth of Directive 89/665 state:

«(...) 's opening up public procurement to Community competition necessitates a substantial increase in the guarantees of transparency and non-discrimination and (...) it is necessary, affinché essa sia seguita da effetti concreti, che esistano mezzi di ricorso efficaci e rapidi in caso di violazione del diritto comunitario in materia di appalti pubblici o delle norme nazionali che recepiscono tale diritto;

(...)

(...) considerando la necessità di garantire in tutti gli Stati membri procedure adeguate che permettano l’annullamento delle decisioni illegittime e l’indennizzo delle persone lese da una violazione».

4 La direttiva suddetta dispone, all’art. 1, n. 1, quanto segue:

«Gli Stati membri prendono i provvedimenti necessari per garantire che, per quanto riguarda le procedures for awarding public contracts covered by Directives 71/305/EEC, 77/62/EEC and 92/50/EEC, decisions taken by contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible in accordance the conditions laid down in the following articles, in particular, Article 2, paragraph 7, if infringed Community law on public procurement or national rules implementing that law.

Article 5. 2, nos. 1 and 5-7 of Directive 89/665 provides:

1. Member States shall ensure that the measures taken concerning the procedures specified in Article 1 prevedano i poteri che permettano di:

a) prendere con la massima sollecitudine e con procedura d’urgenza provvedimenti provvisori intesi a riparare la violazione o impedire che altri danni siano causati agli interessi coinvolti, compresi i provvedimenti intesi a sospendere o a far sospendere la procedura di aggiudicazione pubblica di un appalto o l’esecuzione di qualsiasi decisione presa dalle autorità aggiudicatrici;

b) annullare o far annullare le decisioni illegittime, compresa la soppressione delle specificazioni tecniche, economiche o finanziarie discriminatorie figuranti nei documenti di gara, nei capitolati d’oneri o in ogni altro documento connesso with the contract award procedure in question;

c) award damages to persons injured by the breach.

(...)

5. Member States may provide that, where damages are claimed on the grounds that a decision was taken unlawfully, the first thing [the contested decision must be annulled by a court having the necessary expertise for this purpose].

6. The exercise of the powers referred to in paragraph 1 on a contract concluded subsequent award shall be determined by national law.

In addition, except in cases where a decision must be set aside prior to the award of damages, a Member State may provide that, after the conclusion of a contract following its award, the powers of the body responsible for review procedures shall be limited to awarding damages to any person harmed by a violation.

7. Member States shall ensure that decisions taken by bodies responsible for review procedures can be implemented effectively. "

National law

6 The right dell’Unione in materia di appalti pubblici è stato trasposto, nel Land Stiria, dalla legge del 1998 disciplinante l’affidamento degli appalti pubblici (Steiermärkisches Vergabegesetz 1998; in prosieguo: il «StVergG»).

7 L’art. 115, n. 1, del StVergG dispone quanto segue:

«In caso di violazione colpevole della presente legge o dei regolamenti per la sua applicazione, perpetrata da organi del soggetto preposto alla procedura di affidamento, il candidato od offerente pretermesso ha, nei confronti dell’amministrazione appaltante cui è imputabile il comportamento di tali organi, un diritto al risarcimento delle spese connesse the presentation of the offer and those resulting from participation in the procurement procedure. The claims, including those relating to the possible loss of income, must be brought an action before the ordinary courts. "

Article 8. 1298 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 'the ABGB) provides:

"He who claims to have found no fault, unable to settle the obligation imposed on him by a contract or by law, is required to provide supporting evidence. If he, by virtue of a contractual agreement, is only liable in case of serious misconduct must also demonstrate the absence of that condition. "

Article 9. ABGB 1299 provides:

"He who exercises a public office, an art, a profession or trade, or who voluntarily and without the need is in charge of managing a business whose realization requires specific knowledge or uncommon diligence, he shows that they felt in the possession of the necessary diligence and uncommon knowledge required, so it's bound to answer any lack thereof. However, if his lack of experience was known to the person who entrusted him the job or he could have become acquainted with ordinary care, it also incurs a fault that may be charged. "

The facts of the case and the questions

10 In 1998 the City of Graz has issued a call for tender by open procedure at EU level for the production and supply of hot mix asphalt in accordance with the provisions of StVergG. The notice, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and the Grazer Zeitung, noted as the place of performance "Graz, Austria 'and provides, in a column titled" Brief description (type of contract, general characteristics, purpose of the work or construction), supply of hot mix asphalt during the year 1999. The notice also stated under the heading "Terms of the implementation of the performance ', the following dates:" Start: 1 March 1999 end: December 20, 1999. "

11 fourteen bids were filed. The best was the one presented by the construction Held & Franck Bau GmbH (hereinafter "HFB"). According to the information contained in the application reference, if that company had been excluded, should have been granted the joint supply companies Strabag and Others

12 The HFB had attached to its offer in a letter which informed, "integrative way," that its new facility for the asphalt mix, which was to be constructed in the following weeks in the Municipality of Großwilfersdorf , would become operational from May 17, 1999. The companies Strabag and Others unaware of the existence of this letter.

13 On May 5, 1999 the company Strabag and Others brought before the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark (Commission di controllo sugli appalti pubblici del Land Stiria) un ricorso nel quale hanno fatto valere che la HFB non disponeva, nel Land Stiria, di impianti per la fabbricazione di conglomerato bituminoso a caldo, ciò che metteva l’impresa suddetta nell’impossibilità tecnica di eseguire l’appalto in questione. Pertanto, a loro avviso, l’offerta di tale impresa doveva essere esclusa.

14 Le società Strabag e a. hanno parallelamente proposto una domanda di provvedimenti provvisori, la quale è stata accolta dal Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark con ordinanza 10 maggio 1999, che ha vietato alla Stadt Graz di procedere all’aggiudicazione dell’appalto in attesa della decisione the merits.

15 By decision of 10 June 1999, the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark has fully rejected the appeal of the companies Strabag and Others and, in particular, questions designed to obtain the opening of a procedure for review of the HFB and exclusion from the race. It held that the company had a permit holder carrying on asphalt and that the claim that the mixing plant hot mix should already be in existence at the time of opening of tenders would be disproportionate and contrary to the object of the current uses of the trade.

16 Il 14 giugno 1999 la Stadt Graz ha aggiudicato l’appalto alla HFB.

17 Con decisione in data 9 ottobre 2002 il Verwaltungsgerichtshof, a seguito di un ricorso proposto dalle società Strabag e a., ha annullato la decisione del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark a motivo della difformità dell’offerta della HFB rispetto al bando di gara, in quanto, sebbene il periodo fissato per la fornitura della prestazione si estendesse dal 1° marzo al 20 dicembre 1999, l’impresa suddetta aveva potuto disporre del suo nuovo impianto di miscelazione dell’asfalto soltanto a partire dal 17 maggio 1999.

18 L’Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für die Steiermark (Consiglio amministrativo indipendente per il Land Stiria), il quale nel 2002 è subentrato nelle competenze prima esercitate dal Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark, ha statuito, con decisione in data 23 aprile 2003, che, a causa di una violazione del StVergG, l’appalto non era stato legittimamente attribuito dalla Stadt Graz.

19 Le società Strabag e a. hanno proposto dinanzi ai giudici ordinari un’azione diretta ad ottenere la condanna della Stadt Graz al pagamento a loro favore della somma di EUR 300 000 a titolo di risarcimento danni. A sostegno della loro azione, esse hanno fatto valere che l’offerta della HFB avrebbe dovuto essere esclusa a motivo di un vizio insanabile e che di conseguenza avrebbe dovuto essere accolta la loro offerta. La Stadt Graz avrebbe agito colpevolmente astenendosi dal constatare l’incompatibilità dell’offerta della HFB con le clausole del bando di gara. La decisione del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark non sarebbe idonea ad esonerare da responsabilità la Stadt Graz, la quale avrebbe agito a proprio rischio.

20 La Stadt Graz ha fatto valere, per parte sua, che essa era vincolata dalla decisione del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark e che l’eventuale illegittimità di tale decisione era imputabile al Land Steiermark, cui andava ricondotto l’operato del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark. By contrast, the bodies of the municipality that would not have committed any culpable action.

21 The court of first instance, with a preliminary decision, said the claim for damages based company Strabag and Others, believing that the City of Graz had acted criminally by failing to check the bids and awarding the contract the HFB, despite the obvious defect vitiating its tender, during the period allowed for appeal against the decision of Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark.

22 That decision was upheld on appeal. The court of appeal, however, said their sentenza era impugnabile mediante ricorso per cassazione [«Revision»] ordinario, tenuto conto della mancanza di giurisprudenza dell’Oberster Gerichtshof in merito alla responsabilità dell’amministrazione aggiudicatrice per una condotta colpevole in una situazione caratterizzata, come nel caso di specie, dall’esistenza, alla data dell’aggiudicazione dell’appalto al miglior offerente, di una decisione del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark di convalida del comportamento tenuto dall’amministrazione stessa.

23 Il giudice d’appello ha ritenuto che, sebbene i giudici ordinari fossero vincolati dalla constatazione di illegittimità contenuta nella decisione April 23, 2003 Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für die Steiermark and had been satisfied that there is a causal link between the unlawful conduct of Stadt Graz and the damage suffered by the companies Strabag and Others, however, it was necessary to examine the question of the existence of a culpability on the part of the Stadt Graz, resulting from its decision to award the contract to the HFB early as June 14, 1999, regardless of the fact, not considered in the decision of 10 June 1999 Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark, that the letter accompanying the offer of this company indicated that it was unable to meet the deadlines for the performance of concerned.

24 The City of Graz was brought before Oberster, an appeal against the ruling on appeal.

25 First, the national court has doubts as to whether art. 115, No 1 of StVergG Directive 89/665. Referring to the judgments of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, and 10 January 2008 in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal (ECR. I-1), it is uncertain whether it should be considered contrasting any national legislation with the directive that in one way or another bidder makes the right to compensation the existence of guilt on the part of the contracting authority, or whether the conflict exists only in the case of national legislation on the tenderer that the burden of proof of that guilt.

26 The national court points out in this regard, that Article. ABGB 1298 by reversal of the burden of proof, under which the responsibility of the contracting authority for the operation of its organs is assumed. In addition, the administration can not raise the lack of their individual abilities, given that his responsibilities would correspond to that of a subject esperto, ai sensi dell’art. 1299 dell’ABGB. Tuttavia, la Stadt Graz potrebbe validamente assolvere l’onere della prova che le incombe qualora essa fosse stata vincolata, in modo effettivo e pieno, all’osservanza della decisione formalmente definitiva emessa dal Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark.

27 In secondo luogo, supponendo che la direttiva 89/665 non osti ad una normativa nazionale quale quella in questione nella causa principale, il giudice del rinvio – che, al pari del Verwaltungsgerichtshof e del giudice d’appello intervenuti nella presente controversia, nega che l’amministrazione aggiudicatrice sia vincolata da una decisione quale quella emessa il 10 giugno 1999 by Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark - wonders if the argument that the administration was not bound by that decision and could have or even had to award the contract to another tenderer is not a conflict with the objective proclaimed art. 2, No 7 of that directive, the effective implementation of decisions taken by bodies responsible for appeal procedures.

28 Thirdly, assuming that the second question should be answered in the affirmative, the national court finds that companies Strabag and Others and the appeal court censor the City of Graz as this would have awarded the contract the HFB regardless of the fact - not considered by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark in its decision of 10 June 1999 - that the company was unable, according to its own guidelines, to perform the contract in question within the prescribed period the tender notice. In those circumstances the national court asks, in the light of Article. 2, No 7 of Directive 89/665, if the contracting authority, even if it were bound by the decision taken by a body such as the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark, or even could, however, have examined the accuracy of that decision and / or exhaustive nature of the assessment on which this was based.

29 In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions:

"1) Are Articles. 1 No 1 and 2, No 1 bed. c) of Directive 89/665 (...) (...), or other provisions of this Directive preclude national rules under which the right to damages for breaches of EU public procurement contracts The contracting entity is dependent on the existence of wrongful conduct, even if that rule is applied in the sense that there was in principle, a presumption of guilt of the contracting for the actions of their bodies and to exclude the possibility of such entity to rely on the absence of their individual skills and thus a lack of subjective culpability.

2) If the answer to the first question, whether Article. 2, No 7 of Directive 89/665 (...) (...) should be interpreted as meaning that, under the obligation imposed by that provision to ensure the effective implementation of decisions taken in the procedures for review, the decision to supervisory authority on public procurement should be recognized binding to all the participants in the proceeding and, therefore, also the purchasing entity.

3) If the answer to the second question, whether, pursuant to art. 2, No 7 of Directive 89/665 (...) (...), the contracting authority has the power, or even the obligation, to disregard a final decision of a supervisory authority on public procurement and, if so, what are the assumptions underlying them. "

The questions

The first question

30 By its first question, the national court is essentially asking whether Directive 89/665 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which makes the right to compensation as a result of a breach of the rules on public procurement by a 'character to the contracting authority guilty of such violation, if the application of the legislation in question is centered on a presumption of guilt on the part of this administration, and the impossibility for it to rely on the absence of their individual capabilities and Thus, a lack of subjective culpability of the alleged violation.

31 In this regard, it should first be noted that Article. 1 No 1 of Directive 89/665 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure the existence of effective procedures and, in particular, as rapidly as possible against the decisions of contracting authorities have "violated" the right of ' EU public procurement or national rules transposing it. The third

' recital' of the directive points out, for its part, the requirement that remedies must be effective and rapid in the case of 'breach' of the law or standards.

32 As regards, in particular, mode of action seeking damages, Article. 2, No 1 bed. c) of Directive 89/665 provides that Member States shall ensure that the measures taken concerning the review of Article. 1 of the directive provides for the powers to grant such compensation to persons harmed by an infringement.

33 However, Directive 89/665 provides only the minimum requirements that the review procedures established in national legal systems must meet in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of EU law on public procurement ( see, inter alia, 27 febbraio 2003, causa C-327/00, Santex, Racc. pag. I-1877, punto 47, e 19 giugno 2003, causa C-315/01, GAT, Racc. pag. I-6351, punto 45). In mancanza di una disposizione specifica in merito, spetta quindi all’ordinamento giuridico interno di ogni Stato membro determinare le misure necessarie per garantire che le procedure di ricorso consentano effettivamente di accordare un risarcimento ai soggetti lesi da una violazione della normativa sugli appalti pubblici (v., per analogia, sentenza GAT, cit., punto 46).

34 Pertanto, se indubbiamente l’attuazione dell’art. 2, n. 1, lett. c), della direttiva 89/665 rientra, in linea di principio, nell’autonomia procedurale Member States, which is bounded by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, it must nonetheless determine whether that rule, interpreted in the light of the context in which the general objective and is part of the means of application seeking approval of a compensation, which precludes a national provision such as that at issue in this case makes the conditions set out in paragraph 30 above, the granting of such compensation to the character guilty of violation of the law on public procurement contract by the contracting authority.

35 In this regard, it is important to note, first, that the wording of Articles. 1 No 1 and 2 nn. 1, 5 and 6 and the sixth 'recital' of Directive 89/665 does not in any way indicate that the violation of procurement rules to give rise to a claim for damages in favor of the injured party must have special features, such as that to be related to a fault, alleged or proven, the contracting authority, or that it does not fall under any cause of exemption from liability.

36 This analysis is supported by the context and objective means of general application seeking approval of compensation provided for in Directive 89/665.

37 It is settled giurisprudenza, gli Stati membri, pur essendo tenuti a prevedere mezzi di ricorso che consentano di ottenere l’annullamento di una decisione dell’amministrazione aggiudicatrice contraria alla normativa sugli appalti pubblici, sono legittimati, in vista dell’obiettivo di celerità perseguito dalla direttiva 89/665, a prevedere per questo tipo di ricorsi termini ragionevoli da osservarsi a pena di decadenza, e ciò per evitare che i candidati e gli offerenti possano in qualsiasi momento allegare violazioni della normativa suddetta, obbligando così l’amministrazione aggiudicatrice a riprendere l’intera procedura al fine di rimediare a tali violazioni [v. in tal senso, in particolare, sentenze 12 dicembre 2002, causa C-470/99, Universale-Bau and Others, ECR. I-11617, paragraphs 74-78; Santex, cit., Paragraphs 51 and 52, October 11, 2007, Case C-241/06, Lämmerzahl ECR. I-8415, paragraphs 50 and 51, and January 28, 2010, Case C-406/08, Uniplex (UK), not yet reported, paragraph 38].

38 Furthermore, Article. 2, No 6, second paragraph, of Directive 89/665 gives the Member States to provide that, after the conclusion of the contract following its award, the powers of the body responsible for appeal procedures are limited to an award of .

39 In this context, the remedy provided for by compensation. 2, No 1 bed. c) of Directive 89/665 may, where appropriate, an alternative procedural compatible with the principle of effectiveness, the underlying objective of effectiveness of the actions pursued by the Directive [see to that effect, inter alia, Uniplex (UK), cit., paragraph 40], only if the possibility of recognizing compensation for breach of public procurement rules are not subject - just as there are other remedies provided for by Article. 2, No 1 - the finding of wrongful conduct required by the contracting authority.

40 As noted by the European Commission, it matters little in this regard that, unlike the national legislation considered in the judgment October 14, 2004, Commission v Portugal, the legislation at issue in this case do not impose the burden on the victim of proving the existence of a fault of the contracting authority, but requires it to overcome the presumption of guilt imposed on it by limiting the reasons given for this purpose.

41 The latter legislation also creates the risk that the agency affected by an unlawful decision of a contracting aggiudicatrice venga comunque privato del diritto di ottenere un risarcimento per il danno causato da tale decisione, nel caso in cui l’amministrazione suddetta riesca a vincere la presunzione di colpevolezza su di essa gravante. Orbene, secondo quanto risulta dalla presente domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale, e così come confermato dalle discussioni svoltesi all’udienza, una simile eventualità non risulta esclusa nel caso di specie, tenuto conto della possibilità per la Stadt Graz di invocare il carattere scusabile dell’errore di diritto da essa asseritamente commesso, a motivo dell’intervento della decisione 10 giugno 1999 del Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark, che ha rigettato il ricorso delle società Strabag e a.

42 At the very least, the agency that runs the risk, by virtue of such legislation, to obtain compensation only belatedly, given the length of time as may be necessary for the investigation of a civil nature intended guilty of the alleged violation.

43 However, in either case, the situation would be contrary to Directive 89/665, as set out in Article. 1 No 1, and the third 'whereas' the latter, which is to ensure the existence of effective remedies and as rapidly as possible against decisions taken by the authorities in breach of procurement rules.

44 should also be noted that, even assuming that, in this case, the City of Graz might have held, in June 1999 to be required, noting the inherent efficiency of any proceedings for the award of public to give immediate effect to the decision of 10 June 1999 Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Steiermark, without awaiting the expiry of the deadline for appeal of that decision, the fact remains that, as stated by the Commission at the hearing, the determination of the merits a claim for compensation proposta dall’offerente pretermesso a seguito dell’annullamento di tale decisione da parte di un giudice amministrativo non può, per parte sua, essere subordinato – in contrasto con il tenore, l’economia sistematica e la finalità delle disposizioni della direttiva 89/665 contemplanti il diritto ad ottenere tale risarcimento – ad una valutazione del carattere colpevole del comportamento dell’amministrazione aggiudicatrice chiamata in causa.

45 Tenuto conto delle considerazioni che precedono, occorre risolvere la prima questione dichiarando che la direttiva 89/665 deve essere interpretata nel senso che essa osta ad una normativa nazionale, la quale subordini il diritto ad ottenere compensation by reason of a breach of the rules on public procurement by the contracting authority in character guilty of such violation, even if the application of the legislation in question is centered on a presumption of guilt on the part of the administration above, and the impossibility for it to rely on the absence of their individual capabilities and, therefore, a lack of subjective culpability of the alleged violation.

The second and third questions

46 Given the answer to the first question, it is necessary to answer the other two questions.

Costs

47 in respect of the main parties, these proceedings are pending before the national court, which is responsible for the decision on costs. The costs incurred by other parties to submit comments to the Court are not recoverable.

For these reasons, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:

The Council Directive of 21 December 1989, 89/665/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of procedures concerning the award degli appalti pubblici di forniture e di lavori, come modificata dalla direttiva del Consiglio 18 giugno 1992, 92/50/CEE, deve essere interpretata nel senso che essa osta ad una normativa nazionale, la quale subordini il diritto ad ottenere un risarcimento a motivo di una violazione della disciplina sugli appalti pubblici da parte di un’amministrazione

aggiudicatrice al carattere colpevole di tale violazione, anche nel caso in cui l’applicazione della normativa in questione sia incentrata su una presunzione di colpevolezza in capo all’amministrazione suddetta, nonché sull’impossibilità per quest’ultima di far valere la mancanza di proprie capacità individuali e, dunque, un difetto subjective culpability of the alleged violation.