Advanced

Upphandling av animaliska livsmedel – Djurskydd i offentlig upphandling

Stefansson, Tobias LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Upphandlingsreglerna i Sverige vilar på en komplicerad normbakgrund bestående av Lissabonfördraget, EU:s upphandlingsdirektiv och LOU.

Livsmedelsupphandlingar har i upphandlingsutredningen (SOU 2011:71) identifierats som ett särskilt problemområde och det råder en stor osäkerhet om vilka krav som är tillåtna att ställa. En stor andel livsmedelsupphandlingar har blivit överprövade och många livsmedelsupphandlingar har fått rättas eller göras om. Ofta har detta skett på grund av att den upphandlande myndigheten har ställt otillåtna krav på djurskydd.

Den praxis som finns på området visar att det är möjligt att ställa djurskyddskrav vid offentlig upphandling, men att det är oklart vilka krav som får ställas mer specifikt.

Av praxis... (More)
Upphandlingsreglerna i Sverige vilar på en komplicerad normbakgrund bestående av Lissabonfördraget, EU:s upphandlingsdirektiv och LOU.

Livsmedelsupphandlingar har i upphandlingsutredningen (SOU 2011:71) identifierats som ett särskilt problemområde och det råder en stor osäkerhet om vilka krav som är tillåtna att ställa. En stor andel livsmedelsupphandlingar har blivit överprövade och många livsmedelsupphandlingar har fått rättas eller göras om. Ofta har detta skett på grund av att den upphandlande myndigheten har ställt otillåtna krav på djurskydd.

Den praxis som finns på området visar att det är möjligt att ställa djurskyddskrav vid offentlig upphandling, men att det är oklart vilka krav som får ställas mer specifikt.

Av praxis kan man dock utläsa att det inte är tillåtet att ställa krav med hänvisning till svenska djurskyddsregler. Detta på grund av att det anses diskriminerande mot utländska leverantörer då utländska leverantörer inte kan förväntas ha kännedom om svenska regler och då de har svårare än svenska leverantörer att leva upp till dem.

Något som i praxis också har visat sig vara svårt är att ställa djurskyddskrav som går utöver reglerna i EU:s minimidirektiv. Dock kan man av praxis även dra slutsatsen att det inte automatiskt är otillåtet så länge den upphandlande myndighetens krav är proportionerliga, icke-diskriminerande och välmotiverade.

Däremot finns det inga hinder mot att dela upp en livsmedelsupphandling i mindre enheter, åtminstone så länge detta inte görs i syfte att understiga ett tröskelvärde.

Krav som ställs i en upphandling måste kunna kontrolleras och det räcker inte att en anbudsgivare intygar att uppgifter som denne lämnar är korrekta. Det är även osäkert om det är tillräckligt med inspektioner. Emellertid torde certifikat eller intyg utställda av svenska eller utländska myndigheter vara godkända.

Sammanfattningsvis visar denna uppsats att upphandlingslagstiftningen och dess bakomliggande normer gör det svårt för upphandlande myndigheter att upphandla animaliska livsmedel som producerats med god djurhänsyn. Men att det inte är omöjligt att ställa krav på djurskydd i upphandlingar. Ännu finns det inget rättsfall angående krav på djurskydd vid offentlig upphandling från Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, men för att få svar på några av de frågetecken som praxis har givit upphov till vore det önskvärt med ett sådant. (Less)
Abstract
The procurement rules in Sweden rests on a complex standard background consisting of the Lisbon Treaty, EU procurement directives and the Swedish procurement law LOU.
Food procurements have in the public procurement report (SOU 2011:71) been identified as a particular problem area and there is a great insecurity of what demands that are allowed to be set. A great number of food procurements has been re-examined in court and many food procurements was forced to be corrected or re-done. Often has this occurred because of forbidden animal welfare requirements that the contracting authority has set.
The practice on the area shows that it is possible to set standards for animal welfare in a public procurement, but it is unclear on what... (More)
The procurement rules in Sweden rests on a complex standard background consisting of the Lisbon Treaty, EU procurement directives and the Swedish procurement law LOU.
Food procurements have in the public procurement report (SOU 2011:71) been identified as a particular problem area and there is a great insecurity of what demands that are allowed to be set. A great number of food procurements has been re-examined in court and many food procurements was forced to be corrected or re-done. Often has this occurred because of forbidden animal welfare requirements that the contracting authority has set.
The practice on the area shows that it is possible to set standards for animal welfare in a public procurement, but it is unclear on what demands that can be set more specifically.
Through practice can one read that it is not allowed to make demands with reference to Swedish animal welfare regulations. This is because it is considered to be discriminating against foreign suppliers, as foreign suppliers cannot be expected to have knowledge of the Swedish rules and then are less likely to live up to them as Swedish suppliers can.
Something which in practice is also proving to be difficult is to set animal welfare standards that go beyond the rules of the EU directive’s minimum standards. However, the practice also conclude that it does not automatically is prohibited as long as the contracting authority’s requirements are proportionate, non-discriminatory and highly motivated.
However, there are no obstacles against dividing food procurement into smaller units, at least as long as it is not done with the purpose to go below a threshold value.
It must be possible to control the demands that are set in procurement, and it is not enough that one tenderer certifies that the information it has given are correct. It is also uncertain if it’s enough with inspections. However, licenses or certificates issued by Swedish or foreign governments should be approved.
This essay will show that the procurement laws and the underlying standards makes it difficult for the contracting authorities to procure animal source food that are been produced with good animal welfare. But it will show that it is not impossible to set demands on animal welfare in procurement. There are no court case concerning demands on animal welfare in a public procurement in The Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden, but to get answers to some of the questions that the practice has created, it would be desirable to have one. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Stefansson, Tobias LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Food Procurement – Animal welfare in public procurement
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Offentlig upphanding, djurskydd, djurskyddskrav, upphandling, animaliska livsmedel, livsmedelsupphandling, LOU
language
Swedish
id
2430653
date added to LUP
2012-05-29 15:55:38
date last changed
2012-05-29 15:55:38
@misc{2430653,
  abstract     = {The procurement rules in Sweden rests on a complex standard background consisting of the Lisbon Treaty, EU procurement directives and the Swedish procurement law LOU. 
Food procurements have in the public procurement report (SOU 2011:71) been identified as a particular problem area and there is a great insecurity of what demands that are allowed to be set. A great number of food procurements has been re-examined in court and many food procurements was forced to be corrected or re-done. Often has this occurred because of forbidden animal welfare requirements that the contracting authority has set. 
The practice on the area shows that it is possible to set standards for animal welfare in a public procurement, but it is unclear on what demands that can be set more specifically. 
Through practice can one read that it is not allowed to make demands with reference to Swedish animal welfare regulations. This is because it is considered to be discriminating against foreign suppliers, as foreign suppliers cannot be expected to have knowledge of the Swedish rules and then are less likely to live up to them as Swedish suppliers can. 
Something which in practice is also proving to be difficult is to set animal welfare standards that go beyond the rules of the EU directive’s minimum standards. However, the practice also conclude that it does not automatically is prohibited as long as the contracting authority’s requirements are proportionate, non-discriminatory and highly motivated.
However, there are no obstacles against dividing food procurement into smaller units, at least as long as it is not done with the purpose to go below a threshold value. 
It must be possible to control the demands that are set in procurement, and it is not enough that one tenderer certifies that the information it has given are correct. It is also uncertain if it’s enough with inspections. However, licenses or certificates issued by Swedish or foreign governments should be approved.
This essay will show that the procurement laws and the underlying standards makes it difficult for the contracting authorities to procure animal source food that are been produced with good animal welfare. But it will show that it is not impossible to set demands on animal welfare in procurement. There are no court case concerning demands on animal welfare in a public procurement in The Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden, but to get answers to some of the questions that the practice has created, it would be desirable to have one.},
  author       = {Stefansson, Tobias},
  keyword      = {Offentlig upphanding,djurskydd,djurskyddskrav,upphandling,animaliska livsmedel,livsmedelsupphandling,LOU},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Upphandling av animaliska livsmedel – Djurskydd i offentlig upphandling},
  year         = {2012},
}