Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010.

Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom.

Directive 89/665/EEC - Procedures for review of the award of public contracts - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Date from which the period for bringing proceedings starts to run.

Case C-406/08.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
13/03/2010 Uniplex (UK)
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2010:45
28/01/2010 Uniplex (UK)
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:45
28/01/2010 Uniplex (UK)
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2009:676
29/10/2009 Uniplex (UK)
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
22/11/2008 Uniplex (UK)
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2010 I-00817

Subject-matter

Interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) – National legislation providing for a period of three months in which to apply for review – Date from which time begins to run – Date on which the Community provisions relating to the award of public contracts were infringed or date on which the complainant became aware of that infringement

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.05 Public procurement
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.05 Public procurement
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.05 Public procurement


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 89/665 : paragraphs 1, 25 - 50
  • Directive 89/665 -A01 : paragraph 24
  • Directive 89/665 -A01P1 : paragraphs 3, 25 - 43
  • Directive 89/665 -A02 : paragraph 24
  • Directive 89/665 -A02P1 : paragraph 4
  • Directive 89/665 -A02QUATER : paragraph 34
  • Directive 2004/18 : paragraph 24
  • Directive 2004/18 -A41P1 : paragraphs 5, 33
  • Directive 2004/18 -A41P2 : paragraphs 5, 33
  • Directive 2007/66 : paragraph 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -14/83 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -361/88 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -221/94 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/99 : paragraphs 26 - 29, 32, 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -327/00 : paragraphs 46, 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -397/01 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -230/02 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -241/06 : paragraphs 38, 46, 49
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -406/08 : paragraph 42

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 89/665 -A01P1

Opinion

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 220 -L1 : point 26
  • Directive 89/665 : points 4, 59, 74
  • Directive 89/665 -A01 : points 5, 18, 21
  • Directive 89/665 -A01P1 : points 21 - 74
  • Directive 89/665 -A01P2 : point 21
  • Directive 89/665 -A01P3 : point 48
  • Directive 89/665 -A02 : point 18
  • Directive 89/665 -A02OCTIES : point 36
  • Directive 89/665 -A02OCTIESP1 : point 36
  • Directive 89/665 -A02P1 : point 6
  • Directive 89/665 -A02QUATER : points 21, 36, 44
  • Directive 89/665 -A02QUINQUIES : point 36
  • Directive 89/665 -A02SEXIES : point 36
  • Directive 2004/18 -A41P1 : point 44
  • Directive 2004/18 -A41P2 : point 44
  • Directive 2007/66 : point 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -33/76 : point 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/77 : point 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -14/83 : point 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/85 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -328/91 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -231/96 : point 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/99 : points 22, 40, 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -327/00 : points 22, 59, 70, 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -397/01 : points 59, 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -482/01 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -30/02 : point 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -21/03 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -186/04 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -15/04 : point 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -142/05 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -454/06 : points 21, 32, 39, 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -241/06 : points 22, 48, 59, 66, 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -244/06 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -268/06 : points 59, 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -454/06 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -250/07 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/07 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -250/07 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -75/08 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -406/08 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -456/08 : points 31, 48, 65, 67, 69, 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/08 : point 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -75/08 : point 43


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 18/09/2008

Date of the Opinion

  • 29/10/2009

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

28/01/2010


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 301 from 22.11.2008, p.23

Judgment: OJ C 63 from 13.03.2010, p.11

Name of the parties

Uniplex (UK)

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Meister, Marie: Précisions sur la prévisibilité des délais de recours en matière de marchés publics, Europe 2010 Mars Comm. nº 114 p.24
  2. Tschäpe, Philipp ; Merkle, Patrick: Vergabe: Unverzüglichkeitserfordernis bei einer Frist im Nachprüfungsverfahren gemeinschaftsrechtswidrig - "Uniplex" - Auswirkungen auf § 107 Abs. 3 GWB, Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2010 p.185-188
  3. Aubert, Michel ; Broussy, Emmanuelle ; Donnat, Francis: Chronique de jurisprudence communautaire. Marché public - Directives - Recours, L'actualité juridique ; droit administratif 2010 p.948-949
  4. Grasböck, Reinhard: EuGH iS Uniplex: Entscheidungsgründe als Bringschuld des Auftraggebers, Zeitschrift für Vergaberecht und Beschaffungspraxis 2010 p.251-252
  5. Carullo, Gherardo: Appalti: il termine di ricorso fra incertezze interpretative e riforme legislative, Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 2010 p.553-565
  6. Ioniţă, Bogdan: Directiva 89/665/CE. Termenul în care pot fi exercitate cǎile de atac împotriva actelor emise de autoritatea contractantǎ., Revista română de drept al afacerilor 2010 nº 03 p.148-157
  7. Finke, Mathias ; Hangebrauck, Ralf ; Gerberding, Johannes: Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2010 p.747-748
  8. Steyger, E.: Beroepstermijnen aanbestedingsrecht en het effectiviteitsbeginsel, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2010 p.195-199
  9. Eliantonio, Mariolina: "Sed Fugit Interea Fugit Irreparabile Tempus" - Time Limits Under English Law. The Requirement of "Promptness" and the Scrutiny of the Court of Justice of the European Union. An Analysis of Case C-406/08, Uniplex (UK) Ltd v. NHS Business Services Authority, Review of European Administrative Law 2010 Vol.3 Nº 2 p.89-98
  10. Vimborsati, Anna Chiara: L'inadempimento da "insufficiente trasposizione testuale": un effetto diretto della "direttiva ricorsi" in materia di appalti pubblici, Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 2010 p.888-899
  11. Reinel, Stefan: Die Rügeobliegenheit nach § 107 Abs. 3 Nr. 1 GWB - Konsequenzen der EuGH-Rechtsprechung, Betriebs-Berater 2011 p.391-395
  12. Anthony, Gordon: Case C-406/08, Uniplex (UK) Ltd v. NHS Business Services Authority, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010; Case C-456/08, Commission v. Ireland, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010, Common Market Law Review 2011 Vol. 48 Nº 2 p.569-579



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Cunha Rodrigues

Advocate General

Kokott

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • German