Ioan Baciu

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 4, Page 307 - 325

Over the years, and owing to a dramatic change in the social configuration of our continent, the initial arrangement consecrated by the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community of 1957 has evolved, from an essentially economic structure, to an amazingly complex edifice defined by the ‘social market economy’. In this new context, public procurement has been given a central role, as a strategic tool in the implementation of various key social policy objectives. Only this has actually placed it deep in the clash between the traditional internal market rules and those pertaining to EU’s social policies. This article tries to spot the concrete place occupied in the described setting by the possibility to reserve a public contract (an institution discriminatory in its very essence) and how this valuable instrument has been transposed into the national legal framework of Member States. It also aims at showing how, in spite of the fact that, by the adoption of Articles 20 and 77 of Directive 2014/24, the general competition rules haven’t been annihilated but just adapted so to better correspond to the new EU landscape, the solution chosen by several Member States for transposition has in fact perverted their original purpose just to offer sufficient leeway for discrimination based on nationality grounds. Keywords: Public contract reserve; Discrimination; Social policy; Strategic public procurement.

Petra Ferk

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 78 - 82

Ioan Baciu

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 73 - 77

​ Karolina Keršytė

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 64 - 68

​The subject matter of the Lithuanian country report is the new regulation of public procurement after the 2014 public procurement directives are transferred into Lithuanian legal system. The report focuses on the new regulation of preparation for tenders, the confidentiality requirements, contract award criteria and dispute resolution.

Paul Heijnsbroek

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 69 - 70

Tünde Tátrai

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 59 - 60

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2,

Ana Hećimović

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 48 - 55

Europeanisation is a process whereby EU institutions and policies influence national institutions and policies within the various Member States. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the Croatian public procurement reform in 2011 was caused by the European Union, domestic variables or by diffusion and interdependence of both. The paper argues that the Croatian public procurement reform was caused by diffusion and interdependence between both the European Union and national institutions.

Miltiades C. Elliotis

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2, Page 91 - 102

After the UK’s momentous vote to leave the EU, in June 2016, a significant number of public sector officials, began wondering about the future of public procurement in the UK and in the EU, during the post-Brexit period. The consequences of Brexit in this area, as in many others, are in fact difficult to predict; they depend essentially on future political decisions, particularly on the UK’s relationship with the EU. What is clear is that the current procurement regulations will remain in the UK as they are, during the negotiating period , which will probably last until the end of 2019. How will procurement be regulated after that? Certainly, there will be no change in procurement regulations in the EU. What about the corresponding UK regulations? One realistic possibility is that the UK will negotiate a trade agreement with the EU that covers public procurement. Therefore, this could allow the UK to apply the EU procurement regime exactly as it is now. This means that the UK will leave the EU but still be a party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Consequently, there will be no change in the procurement regulations in the UK since in essence the EEA applies the same rules on public procurement as the EU does. A second option is for the UK to negotiate another type of trade arrangement with the EU which would certainly include public procurement provisions and it is possible, that these would be the same as those under EU/EEA rules. A third possibility is that the UK will not conclude any specific trade agreement with the EU but that UK trade will be based simply on commitments under the WTO agreements such as the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT) that currently apply for the UK as part of the EU. A final option is for the UK not to commit to any trade agreements that constrain its strategy for regulating public procurement. This means that with this option it will be difficult to predict the final form of UK public procurement law. All these scenarios are discussed in the present work.

Christopher H. Bovis

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2, Page 87 - 90