Opinion of Advocate General Rantos delivered on 11 May 2023.#CRRC Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd and Astra Vagoane Călători SA v Autoritatea pentru Reformă Feroviară and Alstom Ferroviaria SpA.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement in the European Union – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 25 – Economic operators of a third country which has not concluded an international agreement with the European Union which guarantees access to public procurement in a reciprocal and equal manner – No right for those economic operators to ‘no less favourable treatment’ – Exclusion of such an economic operator from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to national legislation – Exclusive competence of the Union.#Case C-266/22.

1.

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(1)(13), Article 18(1), Article 25 and Article 49 of 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, ( 2 ) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1828 of 30 October 2019 ( 3 ) (‘Directive 2014/24’).

2.

By its two questions, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) asks the Court to examine, in essence, whether those provisions of EU law on public procurement preclude an economic operator established in the People’s Republic of China from being excluded from a public procurement procedure initiated by a contracting authority of a Member State, where that exclusion results from national legislation by which the concept of ‘economic operator’ was amended with a view to transposing Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 and that national legislation entered into force after the contract notice was published.

3.

The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, a consortium consisting of CRRC Qingdao Sifang and Astra Vagoane Călători SA (together, ‘the consortium’) and, on the other hand, the Autoritatea pentru Reformă Feroviară (Railway Reform Authority; ‘the ARF’), a contracting entity in Romania, and Alstom Ferroviaria, which intervened in support of the ARF. More precisely, the dispute concerns the decision of this entity to exclude the tender submitted by the consortium in a procurement procedure for the acquisition of 20 new interregional electric multiple units and the provision of maintenance and repair services for those multiple units, on the ground that CRRC Qingdao Sifang is a company whose registered office is in the People’s Republic of China.

4.

The questions referred will allow the Court to examine, for the first time, the conformity with EU law of national rules intended to transpose Article 25 of Directive 2014/24, as well as to interpret the normative content of that provision.

5.

Recitals 1, 17 and 98 of Directive 2014/24 state:

…

…

6.

Article 2 of Directive 2014/24, entitled ‘Definitions’, states, inter alia, the following definitions, in paragraph 1:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:

…

…

…

…

…’

7.

Under Article 7 thereof, entitled ‘Contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors’, Directive 2014/24 is not to apply to public contracts and design contests which, under Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243), as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1829 of 30 October 2019 (OJ 2019 L 279, p. 27) (‘Directive 2014/25’), are awarded or organised by contracting authorities exercising one or more of the activities referred to in Articles 8 to 14 of Directive 2014/25 and are awarded for the pursuit of those activities.

8.

Article 18 of Directive 2014/24, entitled ‘Principles of procurement’, provides, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof, that contracting authorities are to treat economic operators equally and without discrimination and are to act in a transparent and proportionate manner.

9.

Article 19 of that directive, entitled ‘Economic operators’, provides in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Economic operators that, under the law of the Member State in which they are established, are entitled to provide the relevant service, shall not be rejected solely on the ground that, under the law of the Member State in which the contract is awarded, they would be required to be either natural or legal persons.’

10.

Article 25 of that directive, entitled ‘Conditions relating to the GPA and other international agreements’, is worded as follows:

‘In so far as they are covered by Annexes 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the General Notes to the European Union’s Appendix I to the GPA and by the other international agreements by which the Union is bound, contracting authorities shall accord to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the signatories to those agreements treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the Union.’

11.

Article 49 of that directive, entitled ‘Contract notices’, reads as follows:

‘Contract notices shall be used as a means of calling for competition in respect of all procedures, without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 26(5) and Article 32. Contract notices shall contain the information set out in Annex V part C and shall be published in accordance with Article 51.’

12.

Article 58 of Directive 2014/24, entitled ‘Selection criteria’, provides, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 thereof:

‘With regard to suitability to pursue the professional activity, contracting authorities may require economic operators to be enrolled in one of the professional or trade registers kept in their Member State of establishment, as described in Annex XI, or to comply with any other request set out in that Annex.’

13.

Article 1 of Directive 2014/25, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘Procurement within the meaning of this Directive is the acquisition by means of a supply, works or service contract of works, supplies or services by one or more contracting entities from economic operators chosen by those contracting entities, provided that the works, supplies or services are intended for the pursuit of one of the activities referred to in Articles 8 to 14.’

14.

Article 11 of that directive, entitled ‘Transport services’, provides:

‘This Directive shall apply to activities relating to the provision or operation of networks providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway, automated systems, tramway, trolley bus, bus or cable.

As regards transport services, a network shall be considered to exist where the service is provided under operating conditions laid down by a competent authority of a Member State, such as conditions on the routes to be served, the capacity to be made available or the frequency of the service.’

15.

Article 43 of that directive, entitled ‘Conditions relating to the GPA and other international agreements’, is worded as follows:

‘In so far as they are covered by Annexes 3, 4 and 5 and the General Notes to the European Union’s Appendix I to the GPA and by the other international agreements by which the Union is bound, contracting entities within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) shall accord to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the signatories to those agreements treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the Union.’

16.

The communication of the Commission of 24 July 2019, entitled ‘Guidance on the participation of third-country bidders and goods in the EU procurement market’ (C(2019) 5494 final) ( 4 ) (‘the Commission Communication of 24 July 2019’), includes the following relevant passages:

‘The EU has committed itself under several international agreements (such as the Agreement on Government Procurement and bilateral Free Trade Agreements with Procurement Chapters), to grant access to its public procurement market for certain works, supplies, services and economic operators of several third countries.

Accordingly, the public procurement directives provide, for public buyers in the EU, to accord to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the signatories to those agreements treatment that is no less favourable than the treatment accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the EU, in so far as these are covered by these agreements.

Beyond that obligation, economic operators from third countries, which do not have any agreement providing for the opening of the EU procurement market or whose goods, services and works are not covered by such an agreement, do not have secured access to procurement procedures in the EU and may be excluded.’

17.

Article 3(1)(jj) of Legea nr. 98/2016 privind achiziţiile publice (Law No 98/2016 on public procurement) of 19 May 2016 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 390, of 23 May 2016), in the version in force as of 3 April 2020 (‘the Law on Public Procurement’), defines the concept of ‘economic operator’ as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Law, the following definitions apply:

…

(jj) economic operator means any natural or legal person, whether governed by public or private law, or any group or association of such persons, including any temporary association between two or more such entities, which lawfully offers on the market the execution of works and/or a work, the supply of products or the provision of services’.

18.

Article 236 of the Law on Public Procurement provides:

‘1.   This Law shall apply to contract award procedures initiated after the date on which it enters into force.

2.   The law in force on the date on which the contract award procedure is initiated shall apply to contract award procedures which are ongoing on the date on which this Law enters into force.

3.   This Law shall apply to public procurement contracts/framework agreements concluded after the date on which it enters into force.

4.   Public procurement contracts/framework agreements concluded before the date on which this Law enters into force shall be subject to the provisions of the law in force on the date on which they were concluded in all matters concerning the conclusion, amendment, interpretation, effects, performance and termination of those contracts/framework agreements.’

19.

L’Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 25/2021 privind modificarea și completarea unor acte normative în domeniul achizițiilor publice (Government Emergency Order No 25/2021 amending and supplementing certain legislative acts in the field of public procurement) of 31 March 2021 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 346, of 5 April 2021) (‘the OUG No 25/2021’), which entered into force on 5 April 2021, amended several provisions of the Law on Public Procurement in order to transpose Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 and Article 43 of Directive 2014/25.

20.

Article V of the OUG No 25/2021 provides:

‘Contract award procedures in which economic operators have submitted tenders on the date on which this OUG enters into force shall be subject to the legislation in force on the date on which those procedures were initiated.’

21.

Article 3(1)(jj) of the Law on Public Procurement, as amended by the OUG No 25/2021, defines the concept of ‘economic operator’ as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Law, the following definitions apply:

…

(jj) economic operator means any natural or legal person, whether governed by public or private law, or any group or association of such persons, including any temporary association between two or more such entities, which lawfully offers on the market the execution of works and/or a work, the supply of products or the provision of services, and which is established in:

22.

Article 49 of the Law on Public Procurement, as amended by the OUG No 25/2021, provides:

‘1.   Contracting authorities shall be required to treat economic operators equally and without discrimination and shall act in a transparent and proportionate manner.

2.   In so far as they are covered by Annexes 1, 2, 4 and 5, 6 and 7 to Appendix I … to the GPA and by the other international agreements by which the [European Union] is bound, contracting authorities shall accord to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the signatories to those agreements treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the [European Union].’

23.

Article 53(1) and (1 bis) of the Law on Public Procurement, as amended by the OUG No 25/2021, provides:

‘(1)   The economic operators defined in Article 3(1)(jj) shall be authorised to participate in the procurement procedures referred to in Article 68 as individual tenderers/associate tenderers/candidates/third party supporters/subcontractors.

(1 bis)   The contracting authority shall exclude from the procurement procedures any natural or legal person who is an individual tenderer/associate tenderer/candidate/third party supporter/subcontractor and who does not fall within the definition set out in Article 3(1)(jj), without it being necessary to verify compliance with Articles 164, 165 and 167.’

24.

On 3 April 2020, the ARF launched a procurement procedure, through an open call for tenders, for ‘the purchase of 20 new interregional electric multiple units, known as IR-EMUs, and the purchase of the maintenance and repair services necessary for the operation of the trains in question’, by publication in the Sistemul Electronic de Achiziţii Publice (electronic public procurement system) of Contract Notice CN1020204 of 3 April 2020 and of the relevant procurement documents.

25.

On 5 April 2021, the OUG No 25/2021 amending and supplementing certain legislative acts in the field of public procurement entered into force.

26.

On 19 April 2021, which was the time limit for the submission of tenders under the procurement procedure in question, two economic operators, namely the consortium and Alstom Ferroviaria, submitted tenders.

27.

On 2 November 2021, the ARF published the final report on procurement procedure No 22/410/28.10.2021, by which it excluded the tender submitted by the consortium and declared successful Alstom Ferroviaria’s tender (‘the exclusion report’). The ground for the exclusion was that the leader of the consortium, CRRC Qingdao Sifang, did not fall within the concept of ‘economic operator’ as defined in Article 3(1)(jj) of the Law on Public Procurement, as amended by the OUG No 25/2021, in view of the fact that its registered office is in the People’s Republic of China.

28.

On 11 November 2021, the consortium brought an action against the exclusion report before the Consiliul Național de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (National Council for the Resolution of Complaints, Romania; ‘the CNSC’). In that action, the consortium argued that that exclusion, based on the retroactive application of the OUG No 25/2021, was contrary to the Romanian Constitution and EU law.

29.

By decision of 31 January 2022, the CNSC dismissed the consortium’s action. The CNSC, first of all, noted that the People’s Republic of China did not meet any of the requirements set out in Article 3(1)(jj)(i) to (v) of the Law on Public Procurement, as amended by the OUG No 25/2021. The CNSC next found that the consortium had submitted its tender on 19 April 2021, that is to say, after the entry into force on 5 April 2021 of the OUG No 25/2021. Finally, the CNSC stated that, under Article V of the OUG No 25/2021, only contract award procedures in which economic operators have submitted tenders on the date on which that the OUG enters into force are to be subject to the legislation in force on the date on which those procedures were initiated. By contrast, contract award procedures in which no tender was submitted by 5 April 2021, the date of entry into force of the OUG No 25/2021, are governed by that OUG.

30.

On 14 February 2022, the consortium brought an appeal against the CNSC’s decision before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), the referring court, which adjudicates at last instance. In that appeal, the consortium argued that the amendment of the rules of a procurement procedure, in the course of the procedure, constitutes a breach of the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, non-retroactivity, transparency and equal treatment.

31.

On 2 March 2022, the applicants requested that three questions be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

32.

The referring court points out that the OUG No 25/2021 amended the legal framework for public procurement and redefined certain general rules on participation in contract award procedures in accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2014/24, which requires Member States to ensure equal treatment with economic operators from Member States only for economic operators from third States which are signatories to the agreements to which that provision refers.

33.

In the preamble to the OUG No 25/2021, the Romanian Government referred to a trend, over the preceding years, towards an increase in the number of third-country tenderers participating in public procurement procedures and offering reduced guarantees regarding compliance with certain requirements such as certified quality standards, environmental and sustainable development standards, requirements related to working conditions and social protection, and competition policies.

34.

The referring court notes that Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 makes no distinction, as regards the treatment of economic operators referred to in that provision, according to the time at which those operators submitted their tenders in the public procurement procedures in which they are participating.

35.

That court asks to what extent compliance with the principles of certainty in legal relations and the protection of legitimate expectations, as enshrined in EU law, and with the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality laid down in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24, together with Article 2(1)(13) and Article 49 of that directive, is ensured where a tenderer is excluded on the basis of a legislative act which has the force of law and amends the definition of economic operator after publication of the contract notice.

36.

In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

37.

Written observations were submitted to the Court by the consortium, the ARF, Alstom Ferroviaria, the Austrian Government and the European Commission.

38.

Alstom Ferroviaria and the ARF, both in the alternative, as well as the Austrian Government and the Commission, propose that the questions referred be answered in the negative. For its part, the consortium proposes that those questions be answered in the affirmative.

39.

Both Alstom Ferroviaria and the ARF plead that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible in its entirety. Alstom Ferroviaria, more precisely, argues that the questions referred are inadmissible in that they concern the interpretation not of provisions of EU law but of rules of national law, ( 5 ) which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national court. The ARF maintains, for its part, that the legal situation underlying the dispute in the main proceedings does not fall within the scope ratione personae of EU law and that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible as regards CRRC Qingdao Sifang. Moreover, if the request for a preliminary ruling were to be declared inadmissible as regards CRRC Qingdao Sifang, it should also be declared inadmissible as regards Astra Vagoane Călători, which, although established in Romania, participated in the public procurement procedure as part of a consortium with CRRC Qingdao Sifang.

40.

I would point out, in that regard, that, in accordance with settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation procedure between the national courts and the Court of Justice established in Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation or the validity of a rule of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling. ( 6 ) Moreover, the Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. ( 7 )

41.

In the present case, the referring court is seeking to ascertain whether the application, after publication of the contract notice, of national legislation which amended the concept of ‘economic operator’ with a view to transposing Article 25 of Directive 2014/24, which resulted in the exclusion of the consortium, is compatible with EU law. In those circumstances, it cannot be found that it is quite obvious that the interpretation sought of EU law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its object or is hypothetical. Moreover, the order for reference contains sufficient factual and legal material to give a useful answer to the questions submitted by the referring court. So far as concerns, moreover, the arguments put forward by the ARF concerning the inapplicability of Directive 2014/24 to economic operators established in third countries which are not signatories to any agreement opening up the EU procurement market to them, those arguments relate to the substantive analysis of the questions raised and not to their admissibility.

42.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I take the view that the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.

43.

By its two questions referred for a preliminary ruling, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, on the one hand, and the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality laid down in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24, read together with Article 2(1)(13) and Article 49 of that directive, on the other hand, preclude the exclusion of a tenderer on the ground that it is established in a third country which is not a signatory to an agreement referred to in Article 25 of that directive, where, first, that exclusion results from national legislation which amended the concept of ‘economic operator’ with a view to transposing Article 25 of that directive and, second, that national legislation entered into force after the contract notice concerned was published and before the tenders were submitted.

44.

In the light of the facts in the main proceedings, some preliminary remarks are necessary concerning the material, temporal and personal scope of Directive 2014/24. Only if it falls within the scope of that directive will the consortium be able to rely on the various principles of EU law on which the referring court seeks guidance from the Court.

45.

As will be shown below, although the ratione materiae and ratione temporis application of that directive do raise questions, which are ultimately a matter for the national court to decide, that is not the case with respect to its application ratione personae, in so far as Article 25 thereof means that economic operators from third countries, that are not signatories to the agreements referred to in that provision, do not enjoy the rights provided for by that directive and cannot therefore validly rely on a breach of the principles of equality, non-discrimination, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations laid down by EU law.

46.

Like the Austrian Government and the Commission, it seems possible to me that the public contract at issue in the main proceedings, which concerns the acquisition of electric multiple units for rail transport and the maintenance and repair services necessary for the operation of those multiple units, does not fall within the scope of Directive 2014/24, on which the referring court seeks guidance from the Court, but rather is covered by Directive 2014/25.

47.

Directive 2014/24 applies to the procedures for procurement by contracting authorities with respect to public contracts whose value is estimated to be equal to or more than the thresholds laid down in Article 4 thereof. Under Article 7 thereof, that directive does not apply, in particular, to public contracts which are awarded or organised by contracting authorities exercising one or more of the activities referred to in Articles 8 to 14 thereof and are awarded for the pursuit of those activities. Accordingly, the material scope of Directive 2014/24 does not extend, inter alia, to public contracts in the transport services sector, as defined in Article 11 of Directive 2014/25. ( 8 ) Article 11, entitled ‘Transport services’, specifies, in the first paragraph thereof, that that directive is to apply to activities relating to the provision or operation of networks providing a service to the public, inter alia, in the field of transport by railway. Moreover, according to the second paragraph of that article, a network is to be considered to exist where the service is provided under operating conditions laid down by a competent authority of a Member State, such as conditions on the routes to be served, the capacity to be made available or the frequency of the service.

48.

However, in the present case, it cannot be determined conclusively, on a reading of the documents before the Court, either whether the contracting authority at issue in the main proceedings, despite its name, itself provides transport services within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2014/25, ( 9 ) or whether the electric multiple units which are the subject matter of the contract at issue in the main proceedings will be operated within the context of a network within the meaning of that provision. ( 10 ) It will therefore be for the referring court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts, to make those assessments and to establish whether the contract at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Directive 2014/24 or Directive 2014/25.

49.

That said, the fact remains that Article 25 of Directive 2014/24, to which the question referred relates, is drafted in terms analogous to those of Article 43 of Directive 2014/25 and refers, in essence, to the same agreements. ( 11 ) Accordingly, the failure to clearly identify the directive applicable in the main proceedings should not be such as to prevent the Court from answering the questions raised, since the interpretation adopted in relation to Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 is directly transposable to Article 43 of Directive 2014/25. ( 12 )

50.

As is apparent from settled case-law, the directive applicable to a public contract is, as a rule, the one in force at the time when the contracting authority chooses the type of procedure to be followed and decides definitively whether or not a prior call for competition needs to be issued for the award of a public contract. ( 13 )

51.

In that regard, I note that Directive 2004/18 was repealed by Directive 2014/24 with effect from 18 April 2016. Article 90 of Directive 2014/24 provides that Member States must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016, subject to some exceptions, ( 14 ) which, in this case, are irrelevant.

52.

In the present case, the call for tenders was published on 3 April 2020, almost four years after the repeal of Directive 2004/18 and the expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 2014/24. Accordingly, for the EU legal order, the directive in force when the contracting authority chose the type of procedure was Directive 2014/24.

53.

That conclusion cannot be called into question by the fact that the OUG No 25/2021, which transposed Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 into Romanian law, did not enter into force until 5 April 2021, that is to say, after the launch of the tender on 3 April 2020 and almost five years after the deadline for transposition of Directive 2014/24.

54.

In the first place, it is clear from settled case-law on the application of Directive 2014/24 that the provisions of that directive apply in the period after the deadline for transposition, and even before the date of actual transposition. ( 15 ) Moreover, the Court recently ruled that where a tender had been excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract before the expiry of the period for transposition of the relevant directive and before the latter had been incorporated into national law, it would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty to apply that directive, given that the decision against which an infringement of EU law is alleged had been taken before that date. ( 16 ) That judgment could be interpreted a contrario as meaning that Directive 2014/24 applies only if, at the very least, it had been transposed into national law at the time of the exclusion. That is the situation in the present case. Therefore, Directive 2014/24 was clearly applicable. That also applies to the rules transposing Directive 2014/25. ( 17 )

55.

In the second place, it should be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, a directive cannot, of itself, impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied upon as such against an individual. If the possibility of relying on a provision of a directive that has not been transposed, or has been incorrectly transposed, were to be extended to the sphere of relations between individuals, that would amount to recognising a power in the European Union to enact obligations for individuals with immediate effect, whereas it has competence to do so only where it is empowered to adopt regulations. ( 18 ) That is, however, not the situation in the present case.

56.

On the one hand, where a person is able to rely on a directive, which has not been transposed within the period prescribed, not as against an individual but as against the State, he may do so regardless of the capacity in which the latter is acting. It is necessary to prevent the State from taking advantage of its own failure to comply with EU law. Consequently, the entities against which reliance may be placed on the provisions of a directive that are capable of having direct effect include not only a public entity but also a body, whatever its legal form, which has been given responsibility, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public-interest service under the control of the State and which has, for that purpose, special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals. ( 19 )

57.

In the present case, the request for a preliminary ruling points to the conclusion that the ARF acted as a public authority meeting the conditions required by Directive 2014/24 in order to be regarded as a ‘contracting authority’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, which is, however, a matter for the referring court to ascertain. ( 20 ) If this is confirmed, then the provisions of Directive 2014/24, including the rules relating to its scope (which have been analysed above) could be relied on against the ARF. Accordingly, in any event, economic operators which participated in the procurement procedure for the contract at issue in the main proceedings, and which fell within the scope of Directive 2014/24, could have relied on the application of that directive after the expiry of the period for its transposition, irrespective of the fact that the directive was transposed only belatedly in Romanian law.

58.

On the other hand, it should also be recalled that the national court is required to interpret national law, as soon as the time limit for the transposition of an untransposed directive expires, so as to render the situation at issue immediately compatible with the provisions of that directive, without however interpreting national law contra legem. ( 21 ) However, in the present case, there is no such risk of a contra legem interpretation, since, at the date on which the action was brought, that is to say, 11 November 2021, the OUG No 25/2021, which transposed Directive 2014/24, was already in force. ( 22 )

59.

In order to be able to rely on the principles of EU law set out in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the consortium must fall within the scope ratione personae of Directive 2014/24. Otherwise, it would have to be concluded that the consortium cannot derive any rights from that directive in the context of the main proceedings. Because EU law would not apply to it, nor could it rely on the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, as guaranteed by EU law.

60.

In that regard, I would point out that CRRC Qingdao Sifang, the leading company of the consortium, is a company established in the People’s Republic of China, which is not a signatory to the agreements referred to in Article 25 of Directive 2014/24. In order to answer the questions referred, it must first of all be determined whether a company established in that State falls within the scope ratione personae of that directive. ( 23 )

61.

In that regard, it is necessary to examine Article 1 of Directive 2014/24, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, which merely states that that directive ‘establishes rules on the procedures for procurement by contracting authorities with respect to public contracts’ and describes the concept of ‘procurement’ within the meaning of that directive, as consisting in ‘the acquisition by means of a public contract of works, supplies or services by one or more contracting authorities from economic operators chosen by those contracting authorities’. ( 24 ) The scope of that directive depends, therefore, in part on the definition of the concept of ‘economic operator’. According to Article 2(1)(10) of that directive, that concept covers ‘any natural or legal person or public entity or group of such persons and/or entities, including any temporary association of undertakings, which offers the execution of works and/or a work, the supply of products or the provision of services on the market’.

62.

On the basis of that definition, which does not formally exclude from the concept of ‘economic operator’ natural or legal persons established in third countries, it might be argued that, in principle, any economic operator from a third country falls within the scope of Directive 2014/24. It is precisely that argument which is supported by the consortium in order to be able to rely on the application of EU law and of certain procedural rights.

63.

I cannot, however, endorse that position. As the ARF, the Austrian Government and the Commission have argued, I consider that economic operators established in third countries do not, in principle, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/24, with the exception of economic operators established in third countries which are signatories to the agreements referred to in Article 25 of that directive. It is therefore necessary to interpret that provision.

64.

According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the objectives of the legislation of which it forms part and the origin of that legislation. ( 25 )

65.

In the first place, as regards the wording of Article 25 of Directive 2014/24, ( 26 ) that provision provides that economic operators from third countries which are signatories to agreements granting access to EU public contracts should be given treatment ‘no less favourable’ than that given to economic operators from Member States. In other words, only undertakings from third countries with which the European Union has signed binding international agreements or bilateral free trade agreements which cover public procurement are granted privileged access to EU public contracts. By contrary inference, it should be deduced from this that Member States have discretion to give less favourable treatment to economic operators from third countries which are not signatories to such agreements, and that, accordingly, undertakings from third countries which are not parties to a relevant agreement cannot claim privileged access to EU public contracts. Any other interpretation would render the distinction between signatory and non-signatory States meaningless.

66.

However, the principle of equal treatment of economic operators is at the heart of the public procurement directives, and almost all their provisions are founded on it. Accordingly, where a contracting authority of a Member State has the power to treat an economic operator from a third country less favourably, for example by excluding its tender in favour of that of a national undertaking, it seems to me difficult to argue that such operators still fall, so to speak pro forma, within the scope of the Directives 2014/24 and 2014/25. In other words, the power of Member States to treat economic operators from certain third countries less favourably appears to me to indicate that those operators cannot fall within the scope of the public procurement directives.

67.

That literal interpretation is, moreover, supported by recital 10 of the IPI Regulation, ( 27 ) which, indeed, is subsequent to the adoption of directives 2014/24 and 2014/25 and is not applicable ratione temporis in the main proceedings, but which expressly provides that ‘economic operators from third countries, which do not have any agreement providing for the opening of the EU procurement market, or whose goods, services and works are not covered by such an agreement, do not have secured access to procurement procedures in the EU and may be excluded’.

68.

In the second place, this interpretation is supported by the context of the relevant provisions.

69.

In that regard, it is important to note, first of all, that the legal basis for Directive 2014/24 is Article 53(1), as well as Articles 62 and 114 TFEU. Those provisions concern, respectively, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and adoption of measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. However, according to settled case-law, the abovementioned freedoms are not applicable to services and companies originating in third countries. ( 28 ) Therefore, it could be inferred from the legal basis for Directive 2014/24 that that directive does not apply to economic operators from third countries – save in the context of the exception established by Article 25 thereof.

70.

Next, the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) ( 29 ) and the first subparagraph of Article 58(2) ( 30 ) of that directive start from the premiss that ‘economic operators’, within the meaning of that directive, are established in a Member State.

71.

Lastly, the fact that Directive 2014/24 does not, in principle, apply to economic operators from third countries explains, to me, the need to include in that directive the provision contained in Article 25 thereof in order to bring EU law on public procurement into line with the obligations of openness entered into by the European Union under international agreements.

72.

In the third place, the exclusion argument also seems to be supported by a teleological interpretation of Article 25 of Directive 2014/24. It is indeed apparent from recitals 17 and 98 of the latter, as well as the Commission Communication of 24 July 2019, ( 31 ) that that exclusion reflects the reciprocity strategy established by the European Union in the context of the common commercial policy and particularly in its relations with the People’s Republic of China. It is expressly stated that, beyond the obligation established in Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 (and Article 43 of Directive 2014/25), economic operators from third countries do not have secured access to procurement procedures in the EU and may be ‘excluded’.

73.

That reciprocity strategy consists, more specifically, in negotiating access for EU undertakings to the procurement market of third countries in exchange for access for undertakings from those countries to the EU procurement market. ( 32 ) However, it is clear that that strategy would become impossible to implement in practice if the public procurement directives were to be interpreted as meaning that economic operators from any third country have an effective right to participate in the EU procurement market.

74.

Having regard to all of the foregoing, I consider that economic operators from third States that are not signatories to an agreement referred to in Article 25 of Directive 2014/24 and Article 43 of Directive 2014/25, such as the People’s Republic of China, do not fall within the scope ratione personae of those directives and do not enjoy the rights provided for by those directives. They cannot therefore validly invoke a breach of the principles of equality, non-discrimination, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations laid down by EU law. The only possibility for such an economic operator to invoke such rights under the directive is to argue that the contracting authority of a Member State has erred in considering that the third State is not a signatory to one of the conventions referred to in Article 25 of that directive, or that the procurement procedure in question is not covered by the relevant convention, which is clearly not the case in this instance. In any event, having concluded that Directive 2014/24 is not applicable in the present case, there is no need to answer the two questions which presuppose its application.

75.

Lastly, for the sake of completeness, it should be borne in mind that any claim by the consortium against the ARF, in particular on the basis of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations as a result of the ARF’s conduct, should be based on national law.

76.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) as follows:

Article 2(1)(10), Article 18(1), Article 25 and Article 49 of 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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1828 of 30 October 2019,

must be interpreted as meaning that economic operators from third countries which are not signatories to the agreements referred to in Article 25 of that directive do not enjoy the rights provided for by that directive and cannot therefore validly rely on a breach of the principles of equality, non-discrimination, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations laid down by EU law.