Bent Mousten Vestergaard V Spøttrup Boligselskab. Par 21-24
Bent Mousten Vestergaard V Spøttrup Boligselskab. Par 21-24
In Case C-59/00,
and
Spøttrup Boligselskab,
I - 9507
ORDER OF 3.12.2001 — CASE C-59/00
after informing the referring court of its intention to give its decision by reasoned
order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure,
after inviting the parties referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of
Justice to submit observations,
Order
I - 9508
VESTERGAARD
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
4 As the total budget amount for the contract was DKK 9 643 000, below the
threshold of EUR 5 000 000 laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 93/37/
EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), Spøttrup Boligselskab did not
follow the procedure under Directive 93/37. However, the conditions of tender
were sent to those artisans who so wished.
5 For the 'carpentry' lot for each site, which included the outside doors and
windows, the contract documents contained the following clause: 'PVC windows
and doors. Outside doors and windows shall be supplied by: Hvidbjerg Vinduet,
Østergade 24, 7790 Hvidberg (Denmark)...'.
I - 9509
ORDER OF 3.12.2001 — CASE C-59/00
6 Mr Vestergaard, a master carpenter, submitted tenders for all the 'carpentry' lots.
As his tenders for two of the sites were the lowest, they were accepted. However,
in connection with the signature of the contract, Mr Vestergaard made a
reservation concerning the provision of windows of the Hvidbjerg Vinduet make,
since he had calculated his tenders on the basis of providing windows of the
Trokal make, which are made in Germany. The additional price if windows of the
Hvidbjerg Vinduet make were used was DKK 23 743 excluding VAT. When
signing the contract on 31 July 1997, Spøttrup Boligselskab stated that it could
not accept that reservation.
7 The work was carried out. Mr Vestergaard used Hvidbjerg Vinduet windows, as
required by Spøttrup Boligselskab. However, he maintained his claim for
payment of DKK 23 743. Spøttrup Boligselskab rejected that claim.
I - 9510
VESTERGAARD
EC Treaty that, even if a call for tenders for public works contracts is not covered
by the 'public procurement' directives, the tenderers must be chosen on the basis
of objective criteria and contracts concluded in a non-discriminatory manner. In
addition, in a letter of 4 June 1997, that authority had stated that no contract
concerning inter alia public works should contain terms which amounted to
discrimination against suppliers on grounds of nationality or of the origin of the
goods within the European Union.
1 1 Before the Review Board, the Ministry referred inter alia to the judgment in Case
45/87 Commission v Ireland [1988] ECR 4929.
14 The Review Board decided that public works contracts of low value which,
unlike that at issue in Commission v Ireland, do not exceed the threshold in
Directive 93/37, are generally of no interest or importance in the Community
context, and that for such contracts the cost to the contracting authorities of
complying with the provisions of Directive 93/37 on technical specifications
I-9511
ORDER OF 3.12.2001 — CASE C-59/00
15 Mr Vestergaard brought the matter before the Vestre Landsret, which stayed the
proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary
ruling:
'1. Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are not covered by
Council Directive 93/37/EEC, inasmuch as the threshold value is not
exceeded, entitled to stipulate in the tender documents that a specified
Danish make must be used, where that requirement in the tender documents
is not accompanied by the words "or an equivalent make"?
2. Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are not covered by
Council Directive 93/37/EEC, inasmuch as the threshold value is not
exceeded, entitled to stipulate in the tender documents that a specified make
must be used, where that requirement in the tender documents is not
accompanied by the words "or an equivalent make"?
I - 9512
VESTERGAARD
16 By its three questions, which should be examined together, the Vestre Landsret
essentially asks whether the inclusion by a contracting authority in the contract
documents for a public works contract not exceeding the threshold laid down in
Directive 93/37 of a clause requiring the use of a product of a specified make is
contrary to the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular Articles 6 and 30,
where that requirement is not followed by the words 'or equivalent'.
17 Since it considered that the answer to the questions, as reformulated, was clear
from the case-law, in particular Case C-359/93 Commission v Netherlands
[1995] ECR I-157, the Court, in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of
Procedure, informed the national court that it intended to give its decision by
reasoned order and invited the parties referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute
of the Court of Justice to submit observations.
18 None of those parties raised any objection to the Court's intention to give its
decision by reasoned order referring to the existing case-law.
19 To rule on the questions, it should be noted, to begin with, that the Community
directives coordinating public procurement procedures apply only to contracts
whose value exceeds a threshold laid down expressly in each directive. However,
the mere fact that the Community legislature considered that the strict special
procedures laid down in those directives are not appropriate in the case of public
contracts of small value does not mean that those contracts are excluded from the
scope of Community law.
I - 9513
ORDER OF 3.12.2001 — CASE C-59/00
20 Although certain contracts are excluded from the scope of the Community
directives in the field of public procurement, the contracting authorities which
conclude them are nevertheless bound to comply with the fundamental rules of
the Treaty (see, to that effect, Case C-324/98 Telaustria and Telefonadress [2000]
ECR I-10745, paragraph 60).
22 In the light of that finding, it must be observed, next, that according to the case-
law on public supply contracts the failure to add the words 'or equivalent' after
the designation in the contract documents of a particular product may not only
deter economic operators using systems similar to that product from taking part
in the tendering procedure, but may also impede the flow of imports in intra-
Community trade, contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty, by reserving the contract
exclusively to suppliers intending to use the product specifically indicated (see, to
that effect, Commission v Netherlands, paragraph 27).
I - 9514
VESTERGAARD
24 It is therefore clear from the case-law that, notwithstanding the fact that a public
works contract does not exceed the threshold laid down in Directive 93/37 and
does not thus fall within its scope, Article 30 of the Treaty precludes a contracting
authority from including in the contract documents for that contract a clause
requiring the use in carrying out the contract of a product of a specified make,
without adding the words 'or equivalent'.
25 In the light of the above considerations, there is no need to rule on the possible
incompatibility of a clause such as that at issue in the main proceedings with
Article 6 of the Treaty.
26 In those circumstances, the answer to the national court's questions must be that
Article 30 of the Treaty precludes a contracting authority from including in the
contract documents for a public works contract which does not exceed the
threshold laid down in Directive 93/37 a clause requiring the use in carrying out
the contract of a product of a specified make, where that clause does not include
the words 'or equivalent'.
Costs
27 The costs incurred by the Austrian Government and by the Commission, which
have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these
proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action
pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
I- 9515
ORDER OF 3.12.2001 — CASE C-59/00
On those grounds,
hereby orders:
R. Grass N. Colneric
I - 9516