Advanced

Skadestånd vid offentlig upphandling

Bjernestedt, Linna LU (2011) JURM02 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar leverantörers möjligheter till skadestånd vid offentlig upphandling. De frågor som kommer att behandlas är under vilka förutsättningar en leverantör har rätt till skadestånd enligt lag om offentlig upphandling (LOU), huruvida det är möjligt för en leverantör att grunda sin skadeståndstalan direkt på skadeståndslagen (SkL) samt hur skadeståndet ska beräknas. Då lagstiftningen har starka ekonomiska inslag genom kravet på affärsmässighet har ett rättsekonomiskt perspektiv applicerats på arbetet.

Uppsatsen behandlar offentlig upphandling ur en skadeståndsrättslig aspekt och därför behandlas först de allmänna förutsättningarna för skadestånd. Efter detta följer en beskrivning av den offentliga upphandlingens... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar leverantörers möjligheter till skadestånd vid offentlig upphandling. De frågor som kommer att behandlas är under vilka förutsättningar en leverantör har rätt till skadestånd enligt lag om offentlig upphandling (LOU), huruvida det är möjligt för en leverantör att grunda sin skadeståndstalan direkt på skadeståndslagen (SkL) samt hur skadeståndet ska beräknas. Då lagstiftningen har starka ekonomiska inslag genom kravet på affärsmässighet har ett rättsekonomiskt perspektiv applicerats på arbetet.

Uppsatsen behandlar offentlig upphandling ur en skadeståndsrättslig aspekt och därför behandlas först de allmänna förutsättningarna för skadestånd. Efter detta följer en beskrivning av den offentliga upphandlingens bakgrund, hur ett upphandlingsförfarande går till väga samt en presentation av de olika rättsmedel som regleringen erbjuder.

En slutsats som presenteras i arbetet är att det inte är möjligt för en leverantör att grunda sin talan direkt på SkL då huvudregeln är att ett brott måste har skett för att en ren förmögenhetsskada ska ersättas. Det är inte heller möjligt att grunda sin talan på att skadan orsakats genom myndighetsutövning eftersom bland annat Lagrådet har uttalat sig om att offentlig upphandling inte utgör myndighetsutövning.

En annan slutsats som följer av detta arbete är att LOU kan vid en första anblick ses som en mycket förmånlig reglering för en missgynnad leverantör, men att de beviskrav som uppkommer då leverantören ska visa på skada och adekvat kausalitet starkt begränsar dennes möjligheter till skadestånd. Det står även klart att leverantörens skyldighet att begränsa sin skada kraftigt beskär möjligheterna till skadestånd då en leverantör genom denna princip måste bevaka sina intressen och överklaga beslut av myndigheten. Detta medför att i det fall överklagandet bifalls lär myndigheten rätta sitt handlande och möjligheten till skadestånd för leverantören försvinner då denne inte längre har lidit någon skada. I det fall överklagandet avslås leder detta till att leverantören inte kommer att ha framgång med en skadeståndstalan då det redan är fastställt att något åsidosättande av LOU inte har skett. Genom detta blir det främst i de fall det rör sig om en otillåten direktupphandling som en skadeståndstalan blir aktuell. Här ställs dock leverantören inför andra hinder eftersom det blir en helt hypotetisk bedömning av vad myndigheten skulle ha satt för krav då inget förfrågningsunderlag har upprättats. Leverantörens svårighet att visa adekvat kausalitet mellan skadan och myndighetens agerande har lett till att HD funnit det motiverat att införa en viss bevislättnad, leverantören behöver inte styrka att han skulle ha erhållit kontraktet utan det är tillräckligt att denne gör sannolikt att så skulle ha blivit fallet. Vilka beviskrav som gäller, och även i vissa situationer vem som bevisbördan ska placeras hos, utgör dock ett något osäkert rättsområde där olika teorier har presenterats i den juridiska doktrinen. (Less)
Abstract
This paper discusses suppliers' possibilities to recover damages at public procurement. The issues that will be addressed are the conditions under which a supplier is entitled to damages under the law on Public Procurement, whether it is possible for a supplier to base their claim for compensation directly on the Tort Liability Act, and how damages should be calculated. Since the legislation has strong economic elements through the requirement of professionalism, a legal and economic perspective has been applied to this paper. As the paper discusses public procurement from a tort law perspective the general situation for damages is discussed first. This is followed by a description of the public procurement background, how the procedure... (More)
This paper discusses suppliers' possibilities to recover damages at public procurement. The issues that will be addressed are the conditions under which a supplier is entitled to damages under the law on Public Procurement, whether it is possible for a supplier to base their claim for compensation directly on the Tort Liability Act, and how damages should be calculated. Since the legislation has strong economic elements through the requirement of professionalism, a legal and economic perspective has been applied to this paper. As the paper discusses public procurement from a tort law perspective the general situation for damages is discussed first. This is followed by a description of the public procurement background, how the procedure progresses and a presentation of the various legal remedies, which the regulation provide.

A conclusion that is presented in the paper is that it is not possible for a supplier to base an action directly at the Tort Liability Act as a crime must have occurred for a pure economic loss should be compensated. The Council on Legislation has ruled that public procurement does not constitute exercise of authority. Therefore it is not possible to base an action on damages caused by exercise of authority. Another conclusion resulting from this paper is that the law on Public Procurement may at first glance be seen as very favorable settlements for a disadvantaged supplier, but that the standard of proof that arise when the supplier shall demonstrate the harm and adequate causality severely limits the ability to recover damages.

It is also clear that the suppliers’ obligation to mitigate their loss heavily limits the possibility of damages, as suppliers by this principle must defend their interests and appeal against decisions made by the Authority. The result is that, if the appeal is upheld the Authority might correct its actions and the possibility of compensation for the supplier disappears as damages no longer have been suffered.. In the event the appeal is rejected, this results in the supplier not having any success with an action for damages since it is already determined that no breach of the law on Public Procurement has been made. Consequently, mainly in cases where there is an illegal direct procurement, will an action for damages apply. The supplier is however faced with other obstacles and it becomes an entirely hypothetical assessment of what requirements the authorities would have set since no specifications have been prepared. The supplier's inability to show adequate causality between the damage and the actions of the authority has led to the Court of appeal finding it justified to introduce a certain proof relief. It is not necessary for the supplier to prove that a contract would have been secured, only that it is plausible to conclude that it might have been. What standard of proof that apply, and in some situations even with whom the burden of proof should be placed, is however, a somewhat uncertain area of law where various theories have been presented in the legal doctrine. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bjernestedt, Linna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Recover damages at public procurement
course
JURM02 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
offentlig upphandling, skadestånd, avtal, avtalsrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, förvaltningsrätt, direktupphandling, LOU, SkL, ersättning, positiva kontraktsintresset, myndighetsutövning.
language
Swedish
id
2206264
date added to LUP
2011-11-24 16:19:29
date last changed
2011-11-24 16:19:29
@misc{2206264,
  abstract     = {This paper discusses suppliers' possibilities to recover damages at public procurement. The issues that will be addressed are the conditions under which a supplier is entitled to damages under the law on Public Procurement, whether it is possible for a supplier to base their claim for compensation directly on the Tort Liability Act, and how damages should be calculated. Since the legislation has strong economic elements through the requirement of professionalism, a legal and economic perspective has been applied to this paper. As the paper discusses public procurement from a tort law perspective the general situation for damages is discussed first. This is followed by a description of the public procurement background, how the procedure progresses and a presentation of the various legal remedies, which the regulation provide.

A conclusion that is presented in the paper is that it is not possible for a supplier to base an action directly at the Tort Liability Act as a crime must have occurred for a pure economic loss should be compensated. The Council on Legislation has ruled that public procurement does not constitute exercise of authority. Therefore it is not possible to base an action on damages caused by exercise of authority. Another conclusion resulting from this paper is that the law on Public Procurement may at first glance be seen as very favorable settlements for a disadvantaged supplier, but that the standard of proof that arise when the supplier shall demonstrate the harm and adequate causality severely limits the ability to recover damages. 

It is also clear that the suppliers’ obligation to mitigate their loss heavily limits the possibility of damages, as suppliers by this principle must defend their interests and appeal against decisions made by the Authority. The result is that, if the appeal is upheld the Authority might correct its actions and the possibility of compensation for the supplier disappears as damages no longer have been suffered.. In the event the appeal is rejected, this results in the supplier not having any success with an action for damages since it is already determined that no breach of the law on Public Procurement has been made. Consequently, mainly in cases where there is an illegal direct procurement, will an action for damages apply. The supplier is however faced with other obstacles and it becomes an entirely hypothetical assessment of what requirements the authorities would have set since no specifications have been prepared. The supplier's inability to show adequate causality between the damage and the actions of the authority has led to the Court of appeal finding it justified to introduce a certain proof relief. It is not necessary for the supplier to prove that a contract would have been secured, only that it is plausible to conclude that it might have been. What standard of proof that apply, and in some situations even with whom the burden of proof should be placed, is however, a somewhat uncertain area of law where various theories have been presented in the legal doctrine.},
  author       = {Bjernestedt, Linna},
  keyword      = {offentlig upphandling,skadestånd,avtal,avtalsrätt,förmögenhetsrätt,förvaltningsrätt,direktupphandling,LOU,SkL,ersättning,positiva kontraktsintresset,myndighetsutövning.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Skadestånd vid offentlig upphandling},
  year         = {2011},
}