12
Implementation of the Implementation of the ineffectiveness remedy in ineffectiveness remedy in Denmark Denmark Carina Risvig Hamer Carina Risvig Hamer PhD Associate Professor, PhD Associate Professor, University of Southern Denmark University of Southern Denmark Carh@ sam.sdu.dk

Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

Implementation of the ineffectiveness Implementation of the ineffectiveness remedy in Denmarkremedy in Denmark

Carina Risvig HamerCarina Risvig HamerPhD Associate Professor, PhD Associate Professor, University of Southern DenmarkUniversity of Southern [email protected]

Page 2: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

Agenda: Agenda:

1.The Danish Complaints System

1.Implementation of the ineffectiveness remedy in Denmark

1.Voluntary ex ante transparency notices (VEAT) – implementation and practice in Denmark

2.The suggested implementation of the new Procurement Directive – impact on remedies

Page 3: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

1. 1. The Danish Complaints System (I)The Danish Complaints System (I) - - Complaints Board for Public Procurement

• Administrative body • Judges and expert members • Approx. 100 complaints annually (approx. 2200 Contract Notices).

• Competences:• EU Public Procurement Directives• National procurement legislation• For contracts outside the EU Directives only in case the contract is of certain cross-border interest

Page 4: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

1. 1. The Danish Complaints System (II)The Danish Complaints System (II) - - Requirement to complainants

• Locus Standi: – Broader approach than the Remedies Directive– Also organisations and The Danish Competition Authority

• Time limits:– Follows the structure in the Remedies Directive

• Fee:– Approx. 2700 euro for Public Procurement Directive– Approx. 1350 for national legislation

• Costs: legal costs can be awarded to both parties

Page 5: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

2. 2. Ineffectiveness in the Danish Remedies System (I)Ineffectiveness in the Danish Remedies System (I)

Page 6: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

2. Ineffectiveness 2. Ineffectiveness in the Danish Remedies System (II)in the Danish Remedies System (II)

Case Economic sancionJanuary 3, 2012, Danske Arkitektvirksomheder v. Thisted Gymnasium

Approx. 11.000 Euro (DKK 80.000)

January 20, 2012, Danske Arkitektvirksomheder v. Skanderborg Gymnasium

Approx. 5800 Euro (DKK 45.000)

March 6, 2012, Reno Norden v. Skive

August 20, 2012, Intego A/S v. NRGi NET A/S

Fine: approx. 200.000 Euro (DKK 1,5 mio.)

January 10, 2014, Sønderborg Affald A/S v. Affaldsregion Nord I/S

Approx. 90.000 Euro (DKK 685.000 kr.)

May 7, 2015, Rengoering.com A/S v. Ringsted Kommune

Approx. 3000 Euro – (DKK 25000 NB: The minimum sanction)

Page 7: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

3. Voluntary ex ante transparency notice (VEAT) (I) 3. Voluntary ex ante transparency notice (VEAT) (I)

• Ineffectiveness is not an option in case the contracting authority:

1. Has published a VEAT notice in TED2. The contract has not been concluded before the expiry of a

period of at least 10 calendar 3. The contracting authority considers that the award of a

contract without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union is permissible’

Page 8: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

3. VEAT Notices in Denmark (II)3. VEAT Notices in Denmark (II)

Preparatory Act to the Danish Enforcement Act states:

•”… if the Complaints Board at a later time considers that the contracting authority has made a manifest error of assessment regarding whether the contract was covered by the Procurement Directives, the Board can declare the contract for ineffective …”

Page 9: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

3. The Danish case law regarding VEAT notices (III)3. The Danish case law regarding VEAT notices (III)

Page 10: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

4. 4. The suggested implementation of the new Procurement Directive

Today: •The Complaints Board has not competence to terminate a contract (outside the ineffectiveness situations) •State of law unclear:

– Court of Justice: C-503/04, Commission v. Germany, C-81/09, Wall,– New Article 73 of the 2014 Procurement Directive

•Danish Court cases: – U 2009.1331 Ø, ”No general duty to terminate a contract” – Case B-2541-07: ”No general duty to terminate a contract according to EU law, but serious breaches can

lead to such a duty e.g. No contract notice”. – Case BS 1-542/2008 ”Based on the circumstances the contracting authority is obliged to

terminate the contract” same situation in Case; U 2012.3232 V

Page 11: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

4. 4. The suggested implementation of the new Procurement Directive

• The (proposed) Procurement Act § 185 (2) deals with the consequences for a contract if a decision to enter into the contract has been annulled by the review bodies

– “if a decision to enter into a contract has been annulled by a review body the contracting authority must seek to terminate the contract unless “particularities apply” “

• Unanswered questions: – What is particularities? – Which consequences will the new provision have? Damages to tenderers? – VEAT notices will not be a safe guard here…

Page 12: Ineffectiveness of contracts in Denmark

… … The Danish review system and remedies for The Danish review system and remedies for breaches of the Public Procurement Rulesbreaches of the Public Procurement Rules

www.djoef-forlag.dk

Carina Risvig HamerPhD Associate professor,

University of Southern Denmark

Phone: 004523717973E-mail: [email protected]

www.udbudslov.dk