Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

EC Notice on How to Tackle Collusion in Public Procurement: journal article

A Step Forward or a Stall for Time?

Wojciech Hartung, Katarzyna Kuźma

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 16 (2021), Issue 2, Page 110 - 124

This article analyses the European Commission (EC) Notice on tools to fight collusion in public procurement and on guidance on how to apply the related exclusion ground of 15 March 2021. The grounds and rules for the exclusion of contractors from participation in public procurement procedures adopted in the 2014 Directives raise many interpretation questions of the contracting authorities and contractors on the one hand and the bodies adjudicating on public procurement in EU Member States on the other hand. One of them is the ground referred to in Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU. Its correct application in practice should contribute considerably to fighting collusive practices in public procurement. It seemed that the long-awaited EC guidance concerning the said exclusion ground will help answer questions of the market and thus contribute to increased legal certainty upon its application. However, this was not the case. Keywords: collusion; EC Notice; exclusion ground; sufficiently plausible indications; contracting authority


In-House Procurement – The Discretion of Member States Confirmed, the Relationship with Competition Law Remains Open journal article

Case C-285/18 Irgita, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (4th Chamber) of 3 October 2019

Wojciech Hartung

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 4, Page 262 - 267

Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law whereby a Member State imposes a requirement that the conclusion of an in-house transaction should be subject, inter alia, to the condition that public procurement does not ensure that the quality of the services performed, their availability or their continuity can be guaranteed, provided that the choice made in favour of one means of providing services in particular, made at a stage prior to that of public procurement, has due regard to the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. The conclusion of an in-house transaction which satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 12(1(a) to (c) of Directive 2014/24 is not as such compatible with EU law. Keywords: In-house procurement; Member States discretion; Competition law.


In-house Procurement – How it is Implemented and Applied in Poland journal article

Wojciech Hartung, Katarzyna Kuźma

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 3, Page 171 - 183

This article discusses the issue of in-house procurement under Polish regulations and how they are applied by local authorities. The authors focus on special conditions in national provisions additional to those provided for in Directive 2014/24/EU. The Polish legislator allows the award of public contracts in a negotiated procedure without publication (single source procurement) among other differences. Polish regulations provide for the performance of local authority tasks via local authority acts. The authors analyse the relationship between public procurement and competition law with regard to the position of local authorities as entities playing a key role in organising public services markets; in Poland, local authorities, including municipalities, have the status of ‘undertaking’ when organising the performance of public services. What has been observed on the market is the tendency for municipal companies to use the privilege created for them in in-house procurement regulations to encroach on a market that is not related to the tasks of their owner and compete with private operators. EU law sets some limits on in-house procurement but does not in itself guarantee uniform application of this modality, leaving a great deal of freedom to Member States. Keywords: Self-governance; In-house procurement; Competition principles; National regulations.

  • «
  • 1
  • »