Action brought on 28 September 2021 – European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-601/21)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, G. Wils and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Poland
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare that, by adding exemptions, relating to the production of certain documents, printed matter and stamps and markings, which are not provided for in Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, 1 the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/24/EU, read in conjunction with Article 346(1)(a) TFEU;
order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In transposing Directive 2014/24, Poland exempted the production of a wide range of documents, printed matter and stamps and markings from the scope of the procedures provided for in that directive. The exemptions introduced by Poland concern public documents (such as, for instance, national ID cards, passport documents and sailors’ service record books); excise stamps, legal markings and vehicle inspection stickers; ballot papers and holographic markings placed on voting rights certificates; microprocessors with software used for the management of public documents; and IT systems and databases essential for the use of public documents. According to the Commission, the introduction of those exemptions amounts to infringement of Directive 2014/24, since the scope of that directive has been limited in a manner that is not justified by the provisions of Directive 2014/24 or Article 346 TFEU. The Commission relies on the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-187/16, Commission v Austria, as an important precedent in that regard.
In the context of the pre-litigation procedure, Poland has argued that there is a need to protect the security of official documents. While agreeing that there is a need to guarantee the security and authenticity of those documents, the Commission considers that Poland has not demonstrated that the required protection, including protection against falsification or protection connected with the provisions on the protection of personal data, cannot be realised in the context of the public procurement procedure provided for in Directive 2014/24.
____________
1 OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.