Intern upphandling - En analys av in house-undantaget i allmänhet och verksamhetskriteriet i synnerhet
(2017) JURM02 20171Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Om en upphandlande myndighet beslutar sig för att använda sig av egna resurser vid en anskaffning krävs ingen föregående tillämpning av upphandlingslagstiftningen. EU-domstolen har i mål C-107/98 Teckal uttalat att användande av resurser som innehas av en fristående enhet under vissa förutsättningar ska anses finnas inom den upphandlande myndighetens egna organisation. Så anses vara fallet när den upphandlande myndigheten utövar kontroll över den fristående enheten motsvarande den som den utövar över sin egen förvaltning, samtidigt som denna fristående enhet bedriver huvuddelen av sin verksamhet tillsammans med den eller de upphandlande myndigheter som innehar den. Dessa två kriterier benämns som kontrollkriteriet och verksamhetskriteriet... (More)
- Om en upphandlande myndighet beslutar sig för att använda sig av egna resurser vid en anskaffning krävs ingen föregående tillämpning av upphandlingslagstiftningen. EU-domstolen har i mål C-107/98 Teckal uttalat att användande av resurser som innehas av en fristående enhet under vissa förutsättningar ska anses finnas inom den upphandlande myndighetens egna organisation. Så anses vara fallet när den upphandlande myndigheten utövar kontroll över den fristående enheten motsvarande den som den utövar över sin egen förvaltning, samtidigt som denna fristående enhet bedriver huvuddelen av sin verksamhet tillsammans med den eller de upphandlande myndigheter som innehar den. Dessa två kriterier benämns som kontrollkriteriet och verksamhetskriteriet och ger gemensamt uttryck för in house-undantaget.
In house-undantaget kodifierades på direktivsnivå först i och med antagandet av direktiv 2014/24/EU. Den följande utredningen har visat att in house-undantaget nationellt har varit frekvent tillämpad vid kommuners anskaffningar av avfallshanteringstjänster. De upphandlande myndigheternas tillämpning av in house-undantaget vid anskaffning av avfallshanteringstjänster har bl.a. resulterat i överträdelseärenden initierade av EU-kommissionen och tillsynsbeslut tagna av Konkurrensverket. Tolkningen av in house-undantagets har främst gått isär vad avser tolkningen av verksamhetskriteriet. De upphandlande myndigheterna har förespråkat en tolkning utifrån bestämmelsens ordalydelse medan EU-kommissionen och Konkurrensverket främst förespråkat en teleologisk tolkning av verksamhetskriteriet. Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera ett antal svenska kommuners tolkning av verksamhetskriteriet och tillämpning av in house-undantaget, och i vilken mån kommunernas tolkning kan anses förenlig med regelverket som styr offentlig upphandling samt dess bakomliggande syften. Uppsatsen behandlar de rättsliga intressen som ligger bakom utvecklandet av in house-undantaget samt vilka förutsättningar som måste vara uppfyllda för att in house-undantaget ska anses tillämpligt i det enskilda fallet. Utredningen granskar även hur verksamhetskriteriet hittills tolkats samt vilken innebörd verksamhetskriteriet bör ges utifrån gällande lagstiftning.
Några av de slutsatser som kunnat dras under arbetet med uppsatsen är att lagstiftningen avseende in house-undantaget främst kan anses vara en kodifiering av EU-domstolens tidigare rättspraxis på området. Tolkningen av verksamhetskriteriet har i viss mån förenklats då det i direktivet klargörs att verksamhetskriteriet är uppfyllt då mer än 80 procent av den fristående enhetens verksamhet bedrivs gentemot den kontrollerande upphandlande myndigheten. Efter en granskning av EU-domstolens tidigare rättspraxis avseende in house-undantaget samt de tolkningsmetoder och allmänna rättsprinciper som EU-domstolen historiskt beaktat i sin rättskipning på området, förespråkar utredningen en teleologisk tolkning av verksamhetskriteriet. En teleologisk tolkning av verksamhetskriteriet kan komma att föranleda omfattande omorganisationer i de upphandlande myndigheterna i syfte att undvika fortsatta överträdelser av upphandlingslagstiftningen samt snedvridning av konkurrensen på marknaden. (Less) - Abstract
- If a contracting authority decides to use its own resources upon acquisition, no prior application of procurement law is required. In Case C-107/98 Teckal, the European Court of Justice has stated that the use of resources held by an independent entity, under certain conditions should be considered within the contracting authority's own organization. Such a situation occurs when the contracting authority exercises control over the independent entity, similar to the control of its own management, and the independent entity at the same time carries out most of its activities with the contracting authority or entity which hold it. These two criteria are referred to as the “control criterion” and the “activity criterion” and combined they... (More)
- If a contracting authority decides to use its own resources upon acquisition, no prior application of procurement law is required. In Case C-107/98 Teckal, the European Court of Justice has stated that the use of resources held by an independent entity, under certain conditions should be considered within the contracting authority's own organization. Such a situation occurs when the contracting authority exercises control over the independent entity, similar to the control of its own management, and the independent entity at the same time carries out most of its activities with the contracting authority or entity which hold it. These two criteria are referred to as the “control criterion” and the “activity criterion” and combined they express the in-house exemption.
The in-house exemption was first codified at the time of the adoption of Directive 2014/24/EU. The following investigation has shown, that nationally, the in-house exemption has been applied frequently in municipalities procurement of waste management services. The contracting authorities' application of the in-house exemption for the procurement of waste management services has resulted in infringement cases initiated by the EU Commission as well as enforcement decisions taken by the Swedish Competition Authority. The differences in interpretation of the in-house exemption has largely been focused around the interpretation of the “activity criterion”. The contracting authorities have advocated an interpretation based on the wording of the provision while the EU Commission and the Swedish Competition Authority primarily advocated a teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion”. The purpose of this essay is to analyze a number of Swedish municipalities' interpretation of the “activity criterion” and their application of the in-house exemption, and analyze to what extent the local government's interpretation can be considered compatible with the regulations governing public procurement and its underlying objectives. The essay addresses the legal interests that lie behind the development of the in-house exemption and conditions that must be met for the in-house exemption to be considered applicable in the individual case. The investigation also examines how the “activity criterion” has been interpreted so far and what the meaning of the “activity criterion” should be based on current legislation.
Some of the conclusions that can be drawn, on the basis of this essay, is that the legislation surrounding the in-house exemption is primarily a codification of the EU Court's previous case-law. The interpretation of the “activity criterion” has, to some extent, been simplified as the Directive clarifies that the “activity criterion” is met when more than 80 percent of the independent entity's operations are conducted against the controlling contracting authority. Following a review of the European Court of Justice's previous case law regarding the in-house exemption as well as the interpretation methods and general principles of law used by the European Court of Justice, the investigation advocates a teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion”. A teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion” could result in extensive reorganization within the contracting authorities in order to avoid continued infringement of procurement legislation and distortion of competition in the market. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908973
- author
- Ivarsson, Johanna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Internal procurement - an analysis of the in-house exemption in general and the "activity criterion" in particular
- course
- JURM02 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, förmögenhetsrätt, förvaltningsrätt, konkurrensrätt, offentlig upphandling, public procurement, teckal, in house-undantaget, intern upphandling, verksamhetskriteriet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8908973
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-15 14:49:58
- date last changed
- 2017-06-15 14:49:58
@misc{8908973,
abstract = {{If a contracting authority decides to use its own resources upon acquisition, no prior application of procurement law is required. In Case C-107/98 Teckal, the European Court of Justice has stated that the use of resources held by an independent entity, under certain conditions should be considered within the contracting authority's own organization. Such a situation occurs when the contracting authority exercises control over the independent entity, similar to the control of its own management, and the independent entity at the same time carries out most of its activities with the contracting authority or entity which hold it. These two criteria are referred to as the “control criterion” and the “activity criterion” and combined they express the in-house exemption.
The in-house exemption was first codified at the time of the adoption of Directive 2014/24/EU. The following investigation has shown, that nationally, the in-house exemption has been applied frequently in municipalities procurement of waste management services. The contracting authorities' application of the in-house exemption for the procurement of waste management services has resulted in infringement cases initiated by the EU Commission as well as enforcement decisions taken by the Swedish Competition Authority. The differences in interpretation of the in-house exemption has largely been focused around the interpretation of the “activity criterion”. The contracting authorities have advocated an interpretation based on the wording of the provision while the EU Commission and the Swedish Competition Authority primarily advocated a teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion”. The purpose of this essay is to analyze a number of Swedish municipalities' interpretation of the “activity criterion” and their application of the in-house exemption, and analyze to what extent the local government's interpretation can be considered compatible with the regulations governing public procurement and its underlying objectives. The essay addresses the legal interests that lie behind the development of the in-house exemption and conditions that must be met for the in-house exemption to be considered applicable in the individual case. The investigation also examines how the “activity criterion” has been interpreted so far and what the meaning of the “activity criterion” should be based on current legislation.
Some of the conclusions that can be drawn, on the basis of this essay, is that the legislation surrounding the in-house exemption is primarily a codification of the EU Court's previous case-law. The interpretation of the “activity criterion” has, to some extent, been simplified as the Directive clarifies that the “activity criterion” is met when more than 80 percent of the independent entity's operations are conducted against the controlling contracting authority. Following a review of the European Court of Justice's previous case law regarding the in-house exemption as well as the interpretation methods and general principles of law used by the European Court of Justice, the investigation advocates a teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion”. A teleological interpretation of the “activity criterion” could result in extensive reorganization within the contracting authorities in order to avoid continued infringement of procurement legislation and distortion of competition in the market.}},
author = {{Ivarsson, Johanna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Intern upphandling - En analys av in house-undantaget i allmänhet och verksamhetskriteriet i synnerhet}},
year = {{2017}},
}