Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 7 results.

Correcting Mistakes and Clarifying Ambiguities in Public Procurement Tenders: journal article

The Case of Estonia

Mari Ann Simovart, Marit Piirisaar

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 17 (2022), Issue 3, Page 144 - 157

Incomplete tenders and missing information seem to be a known constant in public procurement, confronting contracting authorities with legal challenges and critically influencing the results of public purchasing. Faced with a non-conforming tender that cannot be accepted, a contracting authority must choose between two options: to reject the tender or to ask for correction of mistakes in the tender. Exceptionally, instead of the option to clarify, the requirement of proportionality may justify an obligation to do. Subject to a complex discretionary decision, making the choice between a rejection and a clarification has to follow the general principles of EU public procurement law and good administration as well as the national administrative law rules. This article looks at the topic with the help of examples from Estonian case-law. By analysing both the relevant procedural and substantial rules, we draw guidelines to assist navigating the legal maze of conflicting considerations that concern the correction of mistakes and clarification of ambiguities in public procurement tenders. Keywords: clarification of tender; correction of mistake in tender; principle of proportionality

The Principle of Proportionality: journal article

A Balance of Aims in Public Contracts

Carina Risvig Hamer

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 17 (2022), Issue 3, Page 190 - 201

The article explores and analysis how the principle of proportionality has developed over the years and how the principle is applied in EU public procurement law. It explores different justifications for exclusions of undertakings such as social and environmental considerations, and how the principle of proportionality is used when balancing the different aims in public procurement. It is argued that the principle of proportionality ultimately ensures the procurement rules are flexible and contributes to safeguarding and developing the aims in public contracts. Keywords: proportionality; internal market; restrictions; exclusions grounds

The Possibility of Imposing a Fine on Both Parties Due to Unlawful Contract Amendment (Case C-263/19 T-Systems Magyarország) journal article

Tünde Tátrai

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 17 (2022), Issue 3, Page 202 - 205

Case C-263/19 T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 Typically, public procurement rules address the preparation of the procedure or the conduct of procedural acts up to the conclusion of the contract. A novelty of the 2014 Directives is that they provide a much wider opportunity for contract amendment, thus the period of performing the contract becomes increasingly emphatic in regulation. CJEU rulings more and more frequently articulate governing interpretations in relation to contract performance in connection with, for instance, the involvement of subcontractors under a public procurement contract. Recently, the CJEU brought an exceedingly important ruling, which considers the relationships of responsibility of the parties in initiating contract amendments. The question does not concern primarily the unlawful amendment of the contract but the issue to what extent the bidder or the contracting party can be made liable for an unlawful contract amendment. In this case, the CJEU regarded it as appropriate to impose a fine on both contracting parties for an unlawful contract amendment.

Subcontracting Limitation as Expressed by Italian Legislation of Public Contracts Does Not Comply with European Law journal article

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 in Case 63/18 Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Michele Cozzio, Edoardo Tozzo

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 2, Page 174 - 178

The directions provided by the Court are clear in considering that the limit on subcontracting imposed by Italian legislation is precluded by Directive 2014/24/EU. The percentage limit fixed in general and abstract terms goes beyond what was necessary to achieve its objective specially in relation to combat organised crime and may make it more difficult for the SMEs to access public contracts.

The Italian Mechanism of Paid Assistance in Compiling Procurement Documentation journal article

Annotation on the judgment of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 in joined Cases C‑523/16 and C‑536/16 MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA and Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR)

Marco Ceruti

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 3, Page 234 - 240

  • «
  • 1
  • »