Judgment_paragraph 36 · MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA and Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-523/16, C-536/16)

36Those dates are necessarily after the time when the contracting authority selected the type of procedure which it intended to pursue and determine conclusively whether or not there was an obligation to conduct a prior call for competition for the award of the public contract in question. According to the settled case-law of the Court, the applicable directive in the field of public procurement procedures is, as a rule, the one in force when the contracting authority makes such a choice. Conversely, a directive is not applicable if the period prescribed for its transposition expired after that point in time (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 October 2000, Commission v France, C‑337/98, EU:C:2000:543, paragraphs 36, 37, 41 and 42; of 11 July 2013, Commission v Netherlands, C‑576/10, EU:C:2013:510, paragraphs 52 to 54; of 10 July 2014, Impresa Pizzarotti, C‑213/13, EU:C:2014:2067, paragraphs 31 to 33; of 7 April 2016, Partner Apelski Dariusz, C‑324/14, EU:C:2016:214, paragraph 83; and of 27 October 2016, Hörmann Reisen, C‑292/15, EU:C:2016:817, paragraphs 31 and 32).

MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA and Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-523/16, C-536/16)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections