Self-cleaning och de fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna - Allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen och allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt
(2018) JURM02 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I denna uppsats behandlas de fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen och allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt, samt bestämmelsen self-cleaning.
Genom direktiv 2014/24/EU har EU infört ett nytt upphandlingsdirektiv med nya bestämmelser som medlemsstaterna ska inkorporera i sin nationella upphandlingslagstiftning. I det nya direktivet finns det flertalet nya bestämmelser att beakta, bland annat uteslutningsgrunden allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt och bestämmelsen self-cleaning. Syftet med uppsatsen är att först fastställa gällande rätt av det två fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna, för att senare i... (More) - I denna uppsats behandlas de fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen och allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt, samt bestämmelsen self-cleaning.
Genom direktiv 2014/24/EU har EU infört ett nytt upphandlingsdirektiv med nya bestämmelser som medlemsstaterna ska inkorporera i sin nationella upphandlingslagstiftning. I det nya direktivet finns det flertalet nya bestämmelser att beakta, bland annat uteslutningsgrunden allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt och bestämmelsen self-cleaning. Syftet med uppsatsen är att först fastställa gällande rätt av det två fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna, för att senare i uppsatsen kunna analysera hur dessa ska tillämpas när en leverantör utför en self-cleaning.
Allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen har en vid definition och innefattar allt från brott till att leverantören helt enkelt varit oduglig i genomförandet av ett kontrakt. För att bevisa detta ska den upphandlande myndigheten göra sannolikt att ett sådant förhållande föreligger. I proportionalitetsbedömningen av huruvida en leverantör begått ett allvarligt fel ska felets karaktär, svårighetsgrad, tillvägagångssätt samt hur lång tid som förflutit sedan felet begicks, ligga till grund för bedömningen. Gällande den tidsperiod som förflutit sen det uteslutningsgrundande felet begicks ska det beräknas från dagen för den relevanta händelsen och får inte överstiga mer än tre år. I proportionalitetsbedömningen ska även ett eventuellt företrädaransvar tas med i bedömningen.
Allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt innefattar ungefär samma förhållanden som allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen. Skillnaden mellan de två bestämmelserna är att allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt enbart är tillämpligt på kontrakt som är hänförliga till LOU, LUF, LUFS och LUK. Dessutom måste den upphandlande myndigheten i det tidigare kontraktet vidtagit sanktioner mot leverantören för att bestämmelsen ska vara tillämplig. I och med detta har myndigheten inte något beviskrav gällande denna uteslutningsgrund.
Tillämpningen av self-cleaning för dessa uteslutningsgrunder läggs vikt vid hur allvarligt det ”allvarliga felet” var och vilket typ av ”allvarligt fel” det utgjorde så att åtgärderna som vidtas motsvarar det syfte som skyddas samt att åtgärderna som vidtas är proportionerliga i ljuset av dess allvarlighet och hur stor vinst leverantören har haft av att begå felet. Avseende den grupp av ”allvarliga fel” som är hänförliga till leverantörens prestation som kontrakts partner torde self-cleaning enbart omfattas av leverantören fastställer och ersätter eller åtar sig att ersätta den skada denne har förorsakat. (Less) - Abstract
- In this paper, the discretionary exclusion grounds of grave professional misconduct and where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract as well as the self-cleaning rule, are analysed.
By Directive 2014/24/EU, the EU has introduced a new procurement directive with new provisions that Member States should incorporate into their national procurement legislation. The new directive contains several new provisions to consider, including the grounds for exclusion, where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract and the self-cleaning... (More) - In this paper, the discretionary exclusion grounds of grave professional misconduct and where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract as well as the self-cleaning rule, are analysed.
By Directive 2014/24/EU, the EU has introduced a new procurement directive with new provisions that Member States should incorporate into their national procurement legislation. The new directive contains several new provisions to consider, including the grounds for exclusion, where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract and the self-cleaning provision. The purpose of the paper is to first determine the validity of the two discretionary exclusion grounds, so that later in the paper it is possible to analyse how these should be applied when a economic operator performs a self-cleaning.
The exclusion ground grave professional misconduct has a broad definition and encompasses everything from crime to the supplier simply being ineffectual in the performance of a contract. To prove this, the contracting authority needs to prove it likely that a economic operator has committed the grave misconduct. In the proportionality assessment of whether a supplier committed a grave misconduct, the nature, severity, approach, and how much time has elapsed since the grave misconduct was committed should be the basis for the assessment. Regarding the time period elapsed since the grave misconduct was committed; it shall be calculated from the date of the relevant event and may not exceed more than three years. In the proportionality assessment, any grave misconduct of an economic operators representative should also be included in the assessment.
The exclusion ground where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract include approximately the same conditions as grave professional misconduct. The difference between the two provisions is that where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract only apply to contracts that are attributable to LOU, LUF, LUFS and LUK. In addition, the contracting authority in the previous contract must have imposed sanctions against the economic operator for the provision to apply. As a result, the contracting authority doesn’t have a burden of proof regarding this exclusion ground.
The application of self-cleaning for these exclusion grounds emphasizes how serious the "grave misconduct" was and what kind of "grave misconduct" is committed by the economic operator so that the measures taken correspond to the purpose protected and that the measures taken are proportional in the light of its seriousness and how much profit the supplier has made of committing the grave misconduct. In regard to the group of "grave misconducts" attributable to the supplier's performance as a contract partner, self-cleaning should only be subject to the supplier's determination and replacement or commitment to replace the damage it has caused. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8955485
- author
- Andsberg, Adam LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Self-cleaning and the discretionary exclusion grounds - Grave professional misconduct and where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract
- course
- JURM02 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen, Allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt, Self-cleaning, Offentlig upphandling
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8955485
- date added to LUP
- 2018-09-10 13:26:41
- date last changed
- 2018-09-10 13:26:41
@misc{8955485,
abstract = {{In this paper, the discretionary exclusion grounds of grave professional misconduct and where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract as well as the self-cleaning rule, are analysed.
By Directive 2014/24/EU, the EU has introduced a new procurement directive with new provisions that Member States should incorporate into their national procurement legislation. The new directive contains several new provisions to consider, including the grounds for exclusion, where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract and the self-cleaning provision. The purpose of the paper is to first determine the validity of the two discretionary exclusion grounds, so that later in the paper it is possible to analyse how these should be applied when a economic operator performs a self-cleaning.
The exclusion ground grave professional misconduct has a broad definition and encompasses everything from crime to the supplier simply being ineffectual in the performance of a contract. To prove this, the contracting authority needs to prove it likely that a economic operator has committed the grave misconduct. In the proportionality assessment of whether a supplier committed a grave misconduct, the nature, severity, approach, and how much time has elapsed since the grave misconduct was committed should be the basis for the assessment. Regarding the time period elapsed since the grave misconduct was committed; it shall be calculated from the date of the relevant event and may not exceed more than three years. In the proportionality assessment, any grave misconduct of an economic operators representative should also be included in the assessment.
The exclusion ground where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract include approximately the same conditions as grave professional misconduct. The difference between the two provisions is that where the economic operator has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract only apply to contracts that are attributable to LOU, LUF, LUFS and LUK. In addition, the contracting authority in the previous contract must have imposed sanctions against the economic operator for the provision to apply. As a result, the contracting authority doesn’t have a burden of proof regarding this exclusion ground.
The application of self-cleaning for these exclusion grounds emphasizes how serious the "grave misconduct" was and what kind of "grave misconduct" is committed by the economic operator so that the measures taken correspond to the purpose protected and that the measures taken are proportional in the light of its seriousness and how much profit the supplier has made of committing the grave misconduct. In regard to the group of "grave misconducts" attributable to the supplier's performance as a contract partner, self-cleaning should only be subject to the supplier's determination and replacement or commitment to replace the damage it has caused.}},
author = {{Andsberg, Adam}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Self-cleaning och de fakultativa uteslutningsgrunderna - Allvarligt fel i yrkesutövningen och allvarliga eller ihållande brister av ett väsentligt krav i ett tidigare offentligt kontrakt}},
year = {{2018}},
}