Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (C-27/15)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The second question
42

Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (C-27/15)

Judgment of 2 Jun 2016law://eu/cjeu/2015/c-27-15/para_42@2026-11-11

42As has been pointed out in paragraph 39 of the present judgment, a contracting authority must comply strictly with the criteria which it has itself established. That consideration applies a fortiori where an exclusion from the procedure is concerned.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Sixth Chamber
Case: C-27/15 · ECLI:EU:C:2016:404
Decided: 2 Jun 2016
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Council of Administrative Justice for the Region of Sicily, Italy)
Applicant: Pippo Pizzo
Defendants: CRGT Srl; Interested parties and interveners: and 4 more
Autorità Portuale di Messina; Messina Sud Srl; Francesco Todaro; Myleco Sas
Rapporteur: S. Rodin
Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona
Bench: 3 judges
A. Arabadjiev, S. Rodin, E. Regan
Language: Italian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015CJ0027

Topics

Approximation of laws Freedom of establishment Freedom to provide services

History · 1 version

2 Jun 2016Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts
Cited by 14: SIA 'Zinātnes parks' v Finanšu ministrija (C-347/20)2 provisions; Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others (C-642/20); Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji w m.st. Warszawie S.A. v Veolia Water Technologies sp. z o.o. and Others (C-82/24); Luxone Srl and Sofein SpA v Consip SpA (C-403/23); SC NV Construct SRL v Judeţul Timiş (C-403/21)2 provisions; Sped-Pro S.A. v European Commission (T-791/19); Global Translation Solutions ltd. v European Parliament (T-7/20); Rad Service Srl Unipersonale and Others v Del Debbio SpA and Others (C-210/20); SA Close and Cegelec v European Parliament (C-447/19); Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others (C-309/18)2 provisions; Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras and „Ecoservice projektai“ UAB (C-531/16); INGSTEEL spol. sro and Metrostav as v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (C-76/16); Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others (C-171/15); Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev (C-439/16 PPU)
Cites 10: Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts; Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance; Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Région wallonne (C-129/96); Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa) v Regione Marche (C-305/08); Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA (C-42/13); Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA and Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo (C-94/12); Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S (C-336/12); «Ostas celtnieks» SIA v Talsu novada pašvaldība and Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs (C-234/14); Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (C-27/15); La Cascina Soc. coop. arl and Zilch Srl v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio G. f. M. v Ministero della Difesa and La Cascina Soc. coop. arl (C-226/04, C-228/04)