Key Issues for Effective Procurement Remedies

Roberto Caranta

Abstract


Public procurement has been regulated by (then) European Economic Community (EEC) secondary law since 1971. Substantive EU rules aim at enforcing non-discrimination in the internal market. To this end, they prescribe competitive and transparent award procedures contracting authorities or entities must follow to choose their partner. Remedies for breaches of substantive procurement rules have been the object of an early codification in (then) EEC law. The recitals in Directive 89/665/EEC clearly state the issue the directive itself is expected to address: existing arrangements at both national and Community levels for ensuring their application are not always adequate to ensure compliance with the relevant Community provisions particularly at a stage when infringements can be corrected. Many remedies, however, are only named without much details being provided on what is required at national level. Moreover, in the past few years, the Court of Justice seems to have become more restrained in adding details to the Remedies Directives, having instead more and more often recourse to the principle of procedural autonomy. This leaves much uncertainty on the standard of review required or appropriate under the Remedies Directives.


Keywords


public procurement; remedies; non-discrimination; internal market; standard of review

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Arrowsmith S., The Purpose of the EU Procurement Directives: Ends, Means and the Implications for National Regulatory Space for Commercial and Horizontal Procurement Policies, “Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies” 2012, vol. 14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580390.

Berthon G., La suspension juridictionnelle du contrat administratif, entre référé-suspension et référé contractuel, “Revue Française de Droit Administratif” 2009.

Bovis C., Remedies, [in:] EU Public Contract Law: Public Procurement and Beyond, eds. M. Trybus, R. Caranta, G. Edelstam, Brussels 2014.

Brown A., A French Provision Breaches Remedies Directives 89/665 and 92/13 by Jeopardising the Effectiveness of the Standstill Period between Notification of the Award Decision and Conclusion of the Contract: Commission v France (C-327/08), “Public Procurement Law Review” 2009, no. 6.

Burgi M., EU Procurement Rules – A Report about the German Remedies System, [in:] Enforcement of the EU Public Procurement Rules, eds. S. Treumer, F. Lichère, Copenhagen 2011.

Cananea G. della, Bussani M., The ‘Common Core’ of Administrative Laws in Europe: A Framework for Analysis, “Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2019, vol. 26(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X19827817.

Cananea G. della, Caranta R. (eds.), Tort Liability of Public Authorities in European Laws, Oxford 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867555.001.0001.

Caranta R., Learning from Our Neighbours: Public Law Homogenization from Bottom Up, “Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 1997, vol. 4(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X9700400302.

Caranta R., Many Different Paths, but Are They All Leading to Effectiveness?, [in:] Enforcement of the EU Public Procurement Rules, eds. S. Treumer, F. Lichère, Copenhagen 2011.

Caranta R., Procurement Transparency as a Gateway for Procurement Remedies, [in:] Transparency in EU Procurement, eds. K.-M. Halonen, R. Caranta, A. Sánchéz Graells, Cheltenham 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975674.00010.

Caranta R., Remedies in EU Public Contract Law: The Proceduralisation of EU Public Procurement Legislation, “Review of European Administrative Law” 2015, vol. 75(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.7590/187479815X14313382198331.

Caranta R., The Interplay between EU Legislation and Effectiveness, Effective Judicial Protection and the Right to an Effective Remedy in EU Public Procurement Law, “Review of European Administrative Law” 2019, vol. 12(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819X15840066091259.

Caranta R., Sanchez Graells A. (eds.), European Public Procurement: Commentary on Directive 2014/24/EU, Cheltenham 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900682.

Clifton M.-J., Ineffectiveness – The New Deterrent: Will the New Remedies Directive Ensure Greater Compliance with the Substantive Procurement in the Classical Sector?, “Public Procurement Law Review” 2009, vol. 167.

Craig P., Legality: Six Views of the Cathedral, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law, eds. P. Cane, H.C.H. Hofmann, E.C. Ip, P.L. Lindseth, Oxford 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198799986.013.49.

Germain J., Les recours juridictionnels ouverts au concurrent evince contre un marché public communautaire après sa conclusion en France et en Allemagne, “Revue Française de Droit Administratif” 2009.

Lichère F., Gabayet N., Enforcement of EU Public Procurement Rules in France, [in:] Enforcement of the EU Public Procurement Rules, eds. S. Treumer, F. Lichère, Copenhagen 2011.

Marx F.M., Comparative Administrative Law: A Note on Review of Discretion, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1939, vol. 87(8), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3309186.

Marx F.M., Comparative Administrative Law: The Continental Alternative, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1942, vol. 91(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3309211.

Nowicki P., Aksjologia prawa zamówień publicznych. Pomiędzy efektywnością ekonomiczną a instrumentalizacją, Toruń 2019.

Sanchez-Graells A., “If Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It”? EU Requirements of Administrative Oversight and Judicial Protection for Public Contracts, [in:] Contrôles et Contentieux des Contrats Publics – Oversight and Challenges of Public Contracts, eds. L. Folliot-Lalliot, S Torricelli, Brussels 2018.

Steinicke M., Vesterdorf P.L. (eds.), EU Public Procurement Law, Baden-Baden 2018.

Treumer S., Enforcement of the EU Public Procurement Rules: The State of the Law and Current Issues, [in:] Enforcement of the EU Public Procurement Rules, eds. S. Treumer, F. Lichère, Copenhagen 2011.

Treumer S., Towards and Obligation to Terminate Contracts Concluded in Breach of the E.C. Public Procurement Rules – the End of the Status of Concluded Public Contract as Scared Cows, “Public Procurement Law Review” 2007, vol. 371.

Troels Poulsen S., Denmark, [in:] Public Procurement Law: Limitations, Opportunities and Paradoxes, eds. U. Neergaard, C. Jackson, G.S. Ølykke, Copenhagen 2014.

Wollenschläger F., Germany, [in:] Public Procurement Law: Limitations, Opportunities and Paradoxes, eds. U. Neergaard, C. Jackson, G.S. Ølykke, Copenhagen 2014.

LEGAL ACTS

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395/33, 30.12.1989).

Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 76/14, 23.3.1992).

Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ L 335/31, 20.12.2007).

Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ L 315/1, 3.12.2007).

CASE LAW

Judgment of the CJEU of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86, Union nationale des entraîneurs et cadres techniques professionnels du football (Unectef) v Georges Heylens and others, ECLI:EU:C:1987:442.

Judgment of the CJEU of 19 September 1996, Case C-236/95, Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic, ECLI:EU:C:1996:341.

Judgment of the CJEU, Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria and Others ν Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr [1999], ECR I-7671.

Judgment of the CJEU of 18 June 2002, C-92/00, Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH (HI) v Stadt Wien, EU:C:2002:379.

Judgment of the CJEU of 27 February 2003, Case C-327/00, Santex, ECR I-1877.

Judgment of the CJEU of 10 April 2003, joined cases C-20/01, C-28/01, Commission v Germany, ECR I-3609.

Judgment of the CJEU of 15 May 2003, Case C-214/00, Commission v Spain, ECR I-4667.

Judgment of the CJEU of 19 June 2003, Case C-315/01, GAT, ECR I-6351.

Judgment of the CJEU of 24 June 2004, Case C-212/02, Commission v Austria, ECR I-0000.

Judgment of the CJEU of 14 October 2004, Case C-275/03, Commission v Portugal, not published in the ECR.

Judgment of the CJEU of 18 July 2007, Case C-503/04, Commission v Germany, ECR I-6153.

Judgment of the CJEU of 10 January 2008, Case C-70/06, Commission v Portugal, ECR I-1, ECLI:EU:C:2008:3.

Judgment of the CJEU of 14 February 2008, Case C-450/06, Varec SA v État belge, ECLI:EU:C:2008:91.

Judgment of the CJEU of 24 March 2009, Case C-445/06, Danske Slagterier, ECR I-2119.

Judgment of the CJEU of 11 June 2009, Case C-327/08, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2009:371.

Judgment of the CJEU of 23 December 2009, Case C-455/08, Commission v Ireland, ECR I-225.

Judgment of the CJEU of 28 January 2010, Case C-406/08, Uniplex (UK), ECR I-817.

Judgment of the CJEU of 28 January 2010, Case C-456/08, Commission v Ireland, ECR I-859.

Judgment of the CJEU of 30 September 2010, Case C-314/09, Strabag, ECR I-8769.

Judgment of the CJEU of 9 December 2010, Case C-568/08 Spijker, ECR I-12655.

Judgment of the CJEU of 4 June 2013, Case C-300/11, ZZ, EU:C:2013:363.

Judgment of the CJEU of 11 September 2014, Case C-19/13, Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb, ECR I-0000.

Judgment of the CJEU of 11 December 2014, Case C-440/13, Croce Amica One Italia, EU:C:2014:2435.

Judgment of the CJEU of 12 March 2015, Case C-538/13, eVigilo, ECLI:EU:C:2015:166.

Judgment of the CJEU of 6 October 2015, Case C-61/14, Orizzonte Salute, EU:C:2015:655.

Judgment of the CJEU of 14 December 2016, Case C-171/15, Connexxion Taxi Services, ECLI.EU:C:2016:948.

Judgment of the CJEU of 5 April 2017, Case C-391/15, Marina del Mediterráneo and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2017:268.

Judgment of the CJEU of 20 September 2018, Case C-518/17, Rudigier, ECLI:EU:C:2018:757.

Judgment of the CJEU of 28 November 2018, Case C-328/17, Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2018:958.

Judgment of the CJEU of 14 February 2019, Case C-54/18, Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco, EU:C:2019:118.

Judgment of the CJEU of 26 June 2019, Case C-723/17, Craeynest and Others, EU:C:2019:533.

Judgment of the CJEU of 7 September 2021, Case C-927/19, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania), ECLI:EU:C:2021:700.

Judgment of the EGC of 21 September 2016, Case T-363/14, Secolux v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:521.

Judgment of the EFTA Court of 31 October 2017, Case E-16/16, Fosen-Linjen AS v AtB AS (‘Fosen-Linjen I’).

Judgment of the EFTA Court of 1 August 2019, Case E-7/18, Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon (NHO) v AtB AS (‘Fosen-Linjen II’).

Judgment of the EFTA Court of 19 November 2018, Case E-7/18, Fosen-Linjen AS v AtB AS [2019].




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.4.101-125
Date of publication: 2022-12-28 17:33:01
Date of submission: 2022-10-23 18:12:32


Statistics


Total abstract view - 918
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Roberto Caranta

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.