«(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation of Directive 90/531/EEC – Telecommunications – Transposition into national law – Obligation to pay compensation in the event of incorrect implementation)»

1.. Approximation of laws – Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 90/531 – Determination of the telecommunications services excluded from its scope – Power vested in the contracting entities – Incorrect transposition by a Member State – Obligation of the State to pay compensation for damage suffered by a contracting entity – None (Council Directive 90/531, Art. 8(1))

2.. Approximation of laws – Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 90/531 – Scope – Exclusion of contracts concluded by entities offering their services under competitive conditions – Verification as a matter of fact and of law – Criteria (Council Directive 90/531, Art. 8(1))

3.. Community law – Breach by a Member State – Implementation of a directive – Obligation to pay compensation for damage caused to individuals – Conditions

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 March 1996 (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation of Directive 90/531/EEC – Telecommunications – Transposition into national law – Obligation to pay compensation in the event of incorrect implementation))

In Case C-392/93,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, for a preliminary rul ing in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

on the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Directive 90/531/EEC of 17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1990 L 297, p. 1),

THE COURT,,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.N. Kakouris, D.A.O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.L. Murray, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Tesauro,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of British Telecommunications plc, represented by G. Barling QC, T. Sharpe and H. Davies, the United Kingdom, represented b y J. Collins, K.P.E. Lasok QC and S. Richards, Barrister, the German Government, represented by E. Röder, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, acting as Agent, the Italian Government, represented by I. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, and the Commission, represented by H. van Lier and D. McIntyre, at the hearing on 26 October 1994,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 28 November 1995,

gives the following

...

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of 28 July 1993, hereby rules:

Rodríguez Iglesias

Kakouris

Edward

Puissochet

Mancini

Schockweiler

Moitinho de Almeida

Gulmann

Murray

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 March 1996.

R. Grass

G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar

President