Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016

Ambisig – Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v AICP – Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent — Technical abilities of economic operators — Direct effect — Means of evidence — Hierarchical relationship between the private purchaser’s certification and the tenderer’s unilateral declaration — Principle of proportionality — Prohibition on introducing substantive changes to the means of evidence provided for

Case C-46/15


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
26/08/2016 Ambisig
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2016:530
07/07/2016 Ambisig
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2016:530
07/07/2016 Ambisig
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2016:137
03/03/2016 Ambisig
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
17/04/2015 Ambisig
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
2 Institutional framework of the European Union
  2.05 Legal acts of the European Union
    2.05.03 Directives
      2.05.03.01 Direct effect
2 Institutional framework of the European Union
  2.05 Legal acts of the European Union
    2.05.03 Directives
      2.05.03.01 Direct effect
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.05 EU law and national law
    1.05.02 Implementation of EU law within the national legal system
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.02 Public procurement
      4.11.02.02 General rules applicable to public contracts
        4.11.02.02.02 Conduct of procurement procedures
          4.11.02.02.02.04 Choice of participants
            4.11.02.02.02.04.01 Selection criteria
2 Institutional framework of the European Union
  2.05 Legal acts of the European Union
    2.05.03 Directives
      2.05.03.01 Direct effect
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.02 Public procurement
      4.11.02.02 General rules applicable to public contracts
        4.11.02.02.02 Conduct of procurement procedures
          4.11.02.02.02.04 Choice of participants
            4.11.02.02.02.04.01 Selection criteria
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.01 Sources of EU law
    1.01.02 General principles of law
      1.01.02.06 Principle of proportionality
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.02 Public procurement
      4.11.02.02 General rules applicable to public contracts
        4.11.02.02.02 Conduct of procurement procedures
          4.11.02.02.02.04 Choice of participants
            4.11.02.02.02.04.01 Selection criteria
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.07 Interpretation of EU law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.02 Public procurement
      4.11.02.02 General rules applicable to public contracts
        4.11.02.02.02 Conduct of procurement procedures
          4.11.02.02.02.04 Choice of participants
            4.11.02.02.02.04.01 Selection criteria


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • TFEU, Article 288 -L3 : paragraph 24
  • Directive 92/50 : paragraph 18
  • Directive 92/50 -A32P2 : paragraph 19
  • Directive 2004/18 -A01P9 : paragraphs 4, 20, 23
  • Directive 2004/18 -A44P1 : paragraph 39
  • Directive 2004/18 -A45P2L1LG : paragraph 39
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48P2LAPT2 : paragraph 29
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48P2LAPT2T2 : paragraphs 1, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44 - 46, 49, 50, 55, 56
  • Directive 2004/18 -C1 : paragraphs 3, 52
  • Directive 2004/18 -C2 : paragraphs 3, 38, 52
  • Directive 2004/18 -C32 : paragraphs 3, 53
  • Directive 2004/18 -C4 : paragraphs 3, 38
  • Directive 2004/18 -C46 : paragraphs 3, 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/90 : paragraph 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -76/97 : paragraph 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -190/10 -N41 : paragraph 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N24 : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N25 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N37 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N38 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -218/11 -N28 : paragraph 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -94/12 -N34 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -176/12 -N31 : paragraph 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N18 : paragraph 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N23 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N24 : paragraph 22
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -316/13 -N48 : paragraph 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -337/13 -N31 : paragraph 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -30/14 -N30 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/14 -N42 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/14 -N34 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/14 -N29 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -441/14 -N31 : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -441/14 -N32 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -15/15 : paragraphs 17, 33, 41

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 2004/18 -A48P2LAPT2T2

Opinion

  • TFEU, Article 288 -L3 : point 36
  • Directive 71/305 -A26 : point 26
  • Directive 92/50 : points 27, 69, 77
  • Directive 92/50 -A32P2 : points 27, 70
  • Directive 92/50 -A32P2LB : point 67
  • Directive 2004/18 -A01P9 : points 34, 73, 76, 79
  • Directive 2004/18 -A02 : point 48
  • Directive 2004/18 -A45 : point 4
  • Directive 2004/18 -A45P2LG : points 5, 47, 65
  • Directive 2004/18 -A47P4 : point 63
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48 : points 4, 6, 26, 56, 62, 64
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48P2 : points 28, 70, 74
  • Directive 2004/18 -A48P2LAPT2 : points 2, 20 - 29, 37 - 45, 51 - 60, 64, 67, 71, 78, 82 - 85
  • Directive 2004/18 -C2 : point 79
  • Directive 2004/18 -TIT2 : point 4
  • Directive 2014/24 : points 73, 76, 77
  • Directive 2014/24 -A60P4 : point 74
  • Directive 2014/24 -N12PART2LAPT2 : point 75
  • Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 52000PC0275 : point 70
  • Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 52000PC0275 -A49P3 : point 70
  • Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 52002PC0236 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -152/84 -N48 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -31/87 -N43 : point 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/90 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -91/92 -N20 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -76/97 -N47 : point 27
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -350/03 -N88 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -33/08 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -433/08 -N24 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N24 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -282/10 -N43 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -218/11 -N28 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -218/11 -N29 : point 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -219/11 -N13 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/12 -N34 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N18 : point 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N22 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N23 : point 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N24 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/12 -N31 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -42/13 -N42 : point 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -316/13 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -337/13 -N32 : point 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -528/13 -N35 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/14 -N49 : point 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -223/14 -N35 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -237/15 -N35 : point 40


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 05/02/2015

Date of the Opinion

  • 03/03/2016

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

07/07/2016


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 335 from 12.09.2016, p.11

Application: OJ C 146 from 04.05.2015, p.14

Name of the parties

Ambisig

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Simon, Denys: Directive, Europe 2016 Octobre Comm. nº 10 p.14 (FR)
  2. McGowan, David: Permissible Evidence to Demonstrate Economic Operators' Technical Ability: Case C-46/15 Ambisig v AICP, Public Procurement Law Review 2016 p.NA180-NA184 (EN)
  3. Salamun, Michaela: Verpflichtender Abschluss eines Kooperations- oder Gesellschaftsvertrags, Zeitschrift für Vergaberecht und Beschaffungspraxis 2016 p.493-495 (DE)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul - Portugal

Subject-matter

  • Freedom of establishment
  • Freedom to provide services
  • Approximation of laws

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

cinquième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Tizzano

Advocate General

Wathelet

Language(s) of the Case

  • Portuguese

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French