CJEU Case C-300/17 / Opinion

Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Advocate General
Decision date
07/06/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2018:405
  • CJEU Case C-300/17 / Opinion

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/665/EEC — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts and public works contracts — Review procedures — Article 2(6) — Claim for damages — Precondition that the decision by the contracting authority be declared unlawful — Exclusion of legal arguments not submitted before an arbitration committee — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence

    Outcome of the case:

    In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) as follows:

    1. EU law does not preclude a national procedural provision which makes the bringing of an action for damages conditional on a prior final declaration by a body having the necessary powers within the meaning of Article 2(6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts that the decision of a contracting authority is unlawful.
    2. Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 does not preclude the Member States from making provision for situations in which the fact that the decision has not first been set aside is not grounds for the inadmissibility of an action for damages based on the irregularity of a contracting authority’s decision.
    3. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does preclude national legislation which makes bringing an action for damages based on the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful where the applicant for reparation did not have a genuine opportunity to raise before a national court the plea that it wishes to rely upon in support of its action for damages.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)