A point of this regulation must be interpreted in the sense that the fact that a contracting authority has imposed within the framework of a public works procurement contract regarding a project that benefits from financial assistance from the Union as the future adjudicator to carry out at least of these works by own means in violation of Directive constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Article point which justifies the need to apply a financial correction under the mentioned Article to the extent that the possibility that this violation had an impact on the budget of the fund in question cannot be excluded.
The amount of this correction must be determined taking into account Country Email List all the concrete circumstances that are relevant from the perspective of the criteria referred to in paragraph first paragraph of Article of the said regulation namely the nature of the irregularity found its seriousness and the resulting financial loss for the fund in Cause. In a recent decision of April C the Court of Justice also found that a if subcontractors are used for the execution of a public market the contractor not subcontractor must carry out the main part of the work violates European Union law.
This was considered despite the fact that the contract in question had a value below the thresholds provided by the directive in question namely Directive EC . However the Court qualifies this position by stating that such a restriction can in some cases be justified if it pursues a legitimate objective of general interest such as the proper execution of work and that it respects the principle of proportionality which should be naturally evaluated on a casebycase basis. The Court of Justice also ruled in the same ruling on the legality of a provision in both the national Lithuanian procurement legislation and.
發表於 2023-12-27 14:53:44
