Preklusionsfrist genom praxis - En tolkning av HFD 2022 ref. 4 I och II
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En effektivare överprövning av offentlig upphandling har under en längre tid varit en fråga som behandlats både i det svenska rättsväsendet och i EU. Problemet med överprövningsprocessen har främst varit att de varit att det har tagit för lång tid och resulterat till att upphandlingar har behövt göras om.
Som lösning på denna problematik har frågan om preklusionsfrister behandlats i bland annat SOU 2015:12 och prop. 2021/22:12. I båda dessa anfördes det att preklusionsfrister inte borde införas. Under början av 2022 utkom HFD med ett nytt avgörande som stadgade att brister i anbudsunderlaget för offentliga upphandlingar måste ha påtalats innan anbudstiden gått ut för att leverantörer ska anses ha lidit skada. Denna praxis leder till att... (More) - En effektivare överprövning av offentlig upphandling har under en längre tid varit en fråga som behandlats både i det svenska rättsväsendet och i EU. Problemet med överprövningsprocessen har främst varit att de varit att det har tagit för lång tid och resulterat till att upphandlingar har behövt göras om.
Som lösning på denna problematik har frågan om preklusionsfrister behandlats i bland annat SOU 2015:12 och prop. 2021/22:12. I båda dessa anfördes det att preklusionsfrister inte borde införas. Under början av 2022 utkom HFD med ett nytt avgörande som stadgade att brister i anbudsunderlaget för offentliga upphandlingar måste ha påtalats innan anbudstiden gått ut för att leverantörer ska anses ha lidit skada. Denna praxis leder till att leverantörer efter en viss tid förlorar möjlighet till en framgångsrik överprövning. Uppsatsen ämnar således undersöka vad denna nya praxis omfattar och hur den kan komma att användas.
Mot bakgrund av hur det svenska skaderekvisitet i överprövningsprocessen är utformat och hur det tillämpas av HFD i de målen som gav upphov till den nya praxisen är det tydligt att leverantörer, som inte påtalar fel, i realitet förhindras att överpröva upphandlingar efter anbudstidens utgång. Det bör därför kunna sägas att praxisen utgör en de facto preklusionsfrist. Den nya praxisen liknar inte den typ av preklusionsfrist som undersöktes och avfärdades i SOU 2015:12 men bär likheter med det alternativa förslaget som presenterades i den. Hur praxisen kan komma att användas och vad som omfattas av den bör främst kunna besvaras genom att studera EU-rättslig praxis på området, framförallt det som refereras till av HFD. Med hänsyn till EU-domstolens resonemang om upphandlingsprocessens skyndsamhet och effektivitet i liknande mål samt att det anses att rättsmedelsdirektiven inte uppfylls om leverantörer kan överklaga under hela upphandlingsprocessen bör det antas att praxisen omfattar alla fel som ej påtalats. Detta förutsätter dock att felen upptäckts eller borde ha upptäckts innan anbudstidens slut. För det fel som upptäckts först efter anbudstidens utgång bör det fortfarande finnas möjlighet att föra en framgångsrik överprövningsprocess. (Less) - Abstract
- A more effective process for review of public procurement has been a subject of discussion, both in Sweden and in the EU. The problem with the review process has mainly been that it has taken too long and has resulted in many public procurement processes having to start over. As a solution the possibility of preclusion in the public procurement process has been studied in the report SOU 2015:12 and the government bill Prop. 2021/22:120. The conclusion of both were however that a preclusion rule should not be instated in the Swedish public procurement process. At the start of 2022, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court released a new ruling. The ruling stated that the procuring parties in a public procurement process need to be made... (More)
- A more effective process for review of public procurement has been a subject of discussion, both in Sweden and in the EU. The problem with the review process has mainly been that it has taken too long and has resulted in many public procurement processes having to start over. As a solution the possibility of preclusion in the public procurement process has been studied in the report SOU 2015:12 and the government bill Prop. 2021/22:120. The conclusion of both were however that a preclusion rule should not be instated in the Swedish public procurement process. At the start of 2022, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court released a new ruling. The ruling stated that the procuring parties in a public procurement process need to be made aware of deficiencies in the tender documents by the tenderer before the time for submission is over. In case this was not done the tenderer could not be said to have suffered damages or risk suffering damages in case the deficiencies were claimed during a review of the process. A result of this is the lack of possibility for a successful review process after the time for submission. The thesis therefore examines how this new court practice might be used and what implications it has for the subject of preclusion in Swedish public procurement.
In regard of the damage requisite in the Swedish review process in public procurement and how the new court practice was used in the cases that gave rise to it, tenderers, who does not make the procuring party aware of deficiencies, lose the possibility of reviewing a public procurement process after the time of submission has ended. Therefore, it could be said that the new court practice can be regarded as a de facto preclusion rule. It differs from the type of preclusion rule discussed in the report but have some similarities with the alternative solution presented in it. How the new court practice might come to be used should be answered by studying EU-court practice. The EU-court has multiple times expressed that a review system that allows for reviews at any time of the process does not fulfill the effectiveness and speediness asked for in the public procurement process. Therefore, it should be assumed that the new court practice targets all deficiencies that were noticed or should have been noticed. However, deficiencies that were discovered only after the time of submission ended should still be able to lead to a successful review process for the tenderer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081092
- author
- Nordh, Nils LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Förvaltningsrätt, Offentlig Upphandling, Preklusion
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9081092
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 11:11:25
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 11:11:25
@misc{9081092,
abstract = {{A more effective process for review of public procurement has been a subject of discussion, both in Sweden and in the EU. The problem with the review process has mainly been that it has taken too long and has resulted in many public procurement processes having to start over. As a solution the possibility of preclusion in the public procurement process has been studied in the report SOU 2015:12 and the government bill Prop. 2021/22:120. The conclusion of both were however that a preclusion rule should not be instated in the Swedish public procurement process. At the start of 2022, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court released a new ruling. The ruling stated that the procuring parties in a public procurement process need to be made aware of deficiencies in the tender documents by the tenderer before the time for submission is over. In case this was not done the tenderer could not be said to have suffered damages or risk suffering damages in case the deficiencies were claimed during a review of the process. A result of this is the lack of possibility for a successful review process after the time for submission. The thesis therefore examines how this new court practice might be used and what implications it has for the subject of preclusion in Swedish public procurement.
In regard of the damage requisite in the Swedish review process in public procurement and how the new court practice was used in the cases that gave rise to it, tenderers, who does not make the procuring party aware of deficiencies, lose the possibility of reviewing a public procurement process after the time of submission has ended. Therefore, it could be said that the new court practice can be regarded as a de facto preclusion rule. It differs from the type of preclusion rule discussed in the report but have some similarities with the alternative solution presented in it. How the new court practice might come to be used should be answered by studying EU-court practice. The EU-court has multiple times expressed that a review system that allows for reviews at any time of the process does not fulfill the effectiveness and speediness asked for in the public procurement process. Therefore, it should be assumed that the new court practice targets all deficiencies that were noticed or should have been noticed. However, deficiencies that were discovered only after the time of submission ended should still be able to lead to a successful review process for the tenderer.}},
author = {{Nordh, Nils}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Preklusionsfrist genom praxis - En tolkning av HFD 2022 ref. 4 I och II}},
year = {{2022}},
}