EPPPL - European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review

«
1
»

The search returned 4 results.

Raquel Carvalho

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 16 (2021), Issue 1, Page 30 - 38

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a driver of new State legislation in several fields. This article addresses the special public procurement rules enacted in this context, including some challenges such not-so-reflected legislation raised. The ‘successive’ exceptional public procurement regime implies very complex hermeneutics regarding both the subjective and objective scope of application and the discretionary legal requirements established therein. The key measure is a particular direct award regime that has raised some doubts regarding the need for such solutions when compared to those in the Directive. There has already been some monitoring of the regime’s implementation that has underlined the need to continue monitoring ‘the planning, the implementation and management of the public emergency answer’. Keywords: Covid-19; state of emergency; special public procurement rules

Raquel Carvalho

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 43 - 54

Portugal has been leading the way in the implementation of e-procurement within the European Union. This paper, presented in two Parts, starts, in this Part I, by explaining the framework of e-procurement, describing the Portuguese experience regarding the use of electronic platforms based on factual data assembled by the Portuguese regulatory body. Part II describes the legal regime imposed by the European Union Law thoroughly, particularly by article 22 of Directive 2014/24/EU, which is contained in a specific ruling as it has occurred before the full 2014 Directives transposition. To provide the full picture of e-procurement in Portugal, the paper also explains the projected intention of the Directive transposition and the actual legal ruling enshrined in the Public Contracts Code (PCC). Keywords: e-Procurement; Directive 2014/24/EU Implementation

Raquel Carvalho

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 70 - 78

This Part II concludes the paper published in EPPPL 1-2019 regarding the implementation of e-procurement in Portugal. In Part I, the evolution regarding e-procurement provisions within Public Procurement Directives from 2004 to 2014 was addressed. Part II now addresses how both the Public Contracts Code and the specific legislation regarding electronic platforms have transposed the 2014 Public Procurement Directives into internal law, namely: (i) how the transposition of articles 29, 22, 40 and annexes of the 2014 Directives was made [not only the legal regime but also how some litigious questions were taken (and solved) to national administrative courts]; (ii) how the first intention of the Legislator to transpose the 2014 Directives went; and (iii) how they were actually effectively transposed. As already referred to in Part I, the transposition of the 2014 Directives in Portugal was made through a two-step procedure. Article 22 of the 2014/24/Directive was regulated by Law 96/2015, a very extensive and complex regulation regarding e-procurement, while the remaining provisions of the 2014 Directives were transposed in 2017 after a period of public discussion of a very different draft. The path that has been built since 2004 is, thus, consolidated.

Raquel Carvalho

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 4, Page 374 - 382

Based on the analysis of the remedy of ineffectiveness present in the 2007/66 Directive and supported in the European Commission document concerning the Remedies Directive reform, this paper will explain how the remedy of ineffectiveness was implemented in Portuguese law in 2010. Although the Portuguese legislator replicated the Directive in some of its details, Portuguese provisions raised some interpretational issues. Therefore, bearing in mind the revision project subjected to public discussion in August 2016 and the effective Directives’ transposition, it will clarify how these issues of interpretation may be overcome. Furthermore, it will explain how the judicial protection is set out for a full functioning of the remedy.

«
1
»

News

Current Issue