120It should also be pointed out that the contracting authority – whether where it refuses to disclose the confidential information of an economic operator to one of its competitors or where it receives an application for administrative review of its refusal to disclose such information in the context of a mandatory pre-litigation procedure – must also comply with the general principle of EU law relating to good administration, which entails requirements that must be met by the Member States when they implement EU law (judgment of 9 November 2017, LS Customs Services, C‑46/16, EU:C:2017:839, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). Among those requirements, the obligation to state reasons for decisions adopted by the national authorities is particularly important, since it puts their addressee in a position to defend its rights and decide in full knowledge of the circumstances whether it is worthwhile to bring an action against those decisions. It is also necessary in order to enable the courts to review the legality of those decisions and it is therefore a requirement for ensuring that the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter is effective (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 October 1987, Heylens and Others, 222/86, EU:C:1987:442, paragraph 15; of 9 November 2017, LS Customs Services, C‑46/16, EU:C:2017:839, paragraph 40; and of 15 July 2021, Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and SRB, C‑584/20 P and C‑621/20 P, EU:C:2021:601, paragraph 103).
Preliminary reference · referred by the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court, Lithuania)
Rapporteur
D. Šváby
Advocate General
M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona
Bench
15 judgesK. Lenaerts, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J.‑C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, A. Prechal, N. Piçarra, A. Kumin, C. Toader, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, S. Rodin, F. Biltgen, L.S. Rossi, I. Jarukaitis, N. Jääskinen