Brussels, 04/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - Germany and the Netherlands are to be referred to the European Court of Justice in cases involving the award of public contracts without a tendering process.
Public contracts. A) The Netherlands will have to explain itself to the Court over the award of a €30 million concession contract by the Municipality of Eindhoven relating to the development of a community centre known as the “Doornakkers Centre”. B) Germany is to be referred to the Court over the award of waste water disposal services in the city of Hamm to the Lippeverband, a public-private economic operator. C) With the receipt of a letter of formal notice, Germany is requested to comply with a Court ruling (case C-536/07) requiring it to terminate a contract for the construction of four halls for the Cologne trade fair which the city awarded, without putting the contract out to tender, to a private investment firm. Berlin could have to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment. D) Portugal will receive a reasoned opinion following the award, without going through the tendering process, of a contract for the supply of portable computers and internet access as part of national education schemes (e-Escola, e-Professores and e-Oportunidades). E) Four member states (Austria, Greece, Luxembourg and Spain) will be sent reasoned opinions for failing to fully transpose Directive 2007/66/EC on appeals against public contract awards, applicable since the end of 2009.
Various. A) Belgium will find itself before the Court since it requires self-employed service providers, for example, journalists, craftspeople or consultants, from other member states to make a prior declaration, known as the “Limosa” declaration, before being able to provide temporary services in Belgium. The Commission says that this restriction, violation of which can lead to imprisonment, is unjustified. Under Belgian law, companies are required to inform the authorities of cross-border service providers who are not in possession of an acknowledgement of receipt provided once the declaration has been made. B) France has been requested to comply with a Court judgment (case C-170/09) which ruled that it had not transposed the third directive on money laundering, Directive 2005/60/EC, within the allotted time. Paris could by asked to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment. C) Six member states, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden, will each receive a reasoned opinion because they have failed to partially or fully transpose Directive 2007/64/EC on payment services, applicable since November 2009. D) Similarly, four member states (Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) will receive reasoned opinions for incomplete transposition of Directive 2002/65/EC, governing the distance marketing of financial services. (M.B./transl.rt)