Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Överprövning enligt LOU -och förekomsten av negativ rättskraft

Bengtzén, Jesper LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar överprövning inom offentlig upphandling och den därvid närliggande frågan om negativ rättskraft. Offentlig upphandling är ett särpräglat område som har stora likheter med tvistemål inom allmän process. Detta till trots, sorteras området under förvaltningsrätt. LOU reglerar myndigheters inköp av varor och tjänster och bygger på EU-direktiv, vilka dock inte är föremål för behandling i arbetet. Istället fokuserar uppsatsen på talerättsproblematiken med fokus på leverantörs möjlighet att ansöka om överprövning av tilldelningsbeslut och huruvida en lagakraftvunnen dom vinner negativ rättskraft och därmed förhindrar en ny process. Därför behandlar uppsatsen i stor mån även processuella frågor inom förvaltningsrätten som... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar överprövning inom offentlig upphandling och den därvid närliggande frågan om negativ rättskraft. Offentlig upphandling är ett särpräglat område som har stora likheter med tvistemål inom allmän process. Detta till trots, sorteras området under förvaltningsrätt. LOU reglerar myndigheters inköp av varor och tjänster och bygger på EU-direktiv, vilka dock inte är föremål för behandling i arbetet. Istället fokuserar uppsatsen på talerättsproblematiken med fokus på leverantörs möjlighet att ansöka om överprövning av tilldelningsbeslut och huruvida en lagakraftvunnen dom vinner negativ rättskraft och därmed förhindrar en ny process. Därför behandlar uppsatsen i stor mån även processuella frågor inom förvaltningsrätten som klagorätten. Arbetet behandlar även väldigt kort den utredning som regeringen i slutet av år 2013 tillförde för att beröra några av de problem som överprövningsmöjligheterna medför.
Rent kontrekt kan sägas att leverantör idag har rika möjligheter att överklaga en upphandling. För att anhängiggöra en talan i förvaltningsdomstol är kraven ganska lågt ställda och innebär att en för upphandlingen sedd leverantör som upplever skada kan överklaga varje beslut av reeell effekt som den upphandlande myndigheten meddelar. Vinnande leverantör har visserligen en ganska snäv möjlighet att överklaga ett domslut vargenom dennas anbud utesluts. Samtidigt återstår i princip alltid möjligheten att överklaga det tilldelningsbeslut som följer av domslutet.
Mina slutsatser är dels att småföretagare påverkas menligt av överprövningsmöjligheterna då de har svårt att binda resurser under den tid saken överpröva, dels att ett nytt tilldelningsbeslut torde medföra att saken ändras vilket i princip omöjliggör negativ rättskraft inom upphandlingsmål. Samtidigt medhåller jag KamR:ens ställningstagande i HFD 2013 ref. 36 – offentlig upphandling trots dess likhet med tvistemål har större likhet med förvaltningsrätten. (Less)
Abstract
This essay deals with the problem of the possibility for a supplier to raise claims regarding public procurement and the nearby question of res judicata. Public procurement is a distinctive area within Swedish law because of its similarities with civil case suits while still being sorted under administrative law. The Swedish procurement act regulates governmental purchase of wares and services and is based on a Euro directive, which will not be the subject of further description in this paper. Instead this work focuses on the complex of problems concerning claims directed against governmental decisions of allocation which is the prelude of entering into contracts between the parties and whether res judicata prevents a new lawsuit.... (More)
This essay deals with the problem of the possibility for a supplier to raise claims regarding public procurement and the nearby question of res judicata. Public procurement is a distinctive area within Swedish law because of its similarities with civil case suits while still being sorted under administrative law. The Swedish procurement act regulates governmental purchase of wares and services and is based on a Euro directive, which will not be the subject of further description in this paper. Instead this work focuses on the complex of problems concerning claims directed against governmental decisions of allocation which is the prelude of entering into contracts between the parties and whether res judicata prevents a new lawsuit. Therefore, this paper also discusses procedural questions within administrative law. Briefly it will also graze the commission of inquiry regarding public procurement that the Swedish government launched at the end of year 2013 to investigate some of the problems the possibility to raise claims bring about.
A supplier, in Swedish public procurement, has rich possibilities to file suits. To bring the matter before an administrative court the complaint needs to be a potential supplier for the current procurement and feel that he or she is damaged by a decision of the procuring authority, which is an easily achieved demand. The decision must also have an actual effect for the procurement. The supplier that wins the decision of allocation has a tight, yet existing, possibility to appeal against a judicial decision through which the suppliers offer is excluded. That same supplier can also choose to appeal against the new decision of allocation which is likely to follow the judicial decision.
My conclusion is that small companies are affected in a negative way by the possibilities to raise claims, because of the difficulty they have to bind their resources during the procedure. Also, I conclude that a new decision of allocation should change the matter enough for the “question” in the procedure to change, which renders res judicata impossible. I also agree with the administrative court of appeal in their conclusion in HFD 2013 ref. 36 that public procurement, although its likeness with civil case suits, has a larger similarity to administrative law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bengtzén, Jesper LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Offentlig upphandling, Public procurement, Talerätt, Klagorätt, Förvaltningsprocess
language
Swedish
id
4228968
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:43:58
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:43:58
@misc{4228968,
  abstract     = {This essay deals with the problem of the possibility for a supplier to raise claims regarding public procurement and the nearby question of res judicata. Public procurement is a distinctive area within Swedish law because of its similarities with civil case suits while still being sorted under administrative law. The Swedish procurement act regulates governmental purchase of wares and services and is based on a Euro directive, which will not be the subject of further description in this paper. Instead this work focuses on the complex of problems concerning claims directed against governmental decisions of allocation which is the prelude of entering into contracts between the parties and whether res judicata prevents a new lawsuit. Therefore, this paper also discusses procedural questions within administrative law. Briefly it will also graze the commission of inquiry regarding public procurement that the Swedish government launched at the end of year 2013 to investigate some of the problems the possibility to raise claims bring about.
A supplier, in Swedish public procurement, has rich possibilities to file suits. To bring the matter before an administrative court the complaint needs to be a potential supplier for the current procurement and feel that he or she is damaged by a decision of the procuring authority, which is an easily achieved demand. The decision must also have an actual effect for the procurement. The supplier that wins the decision of allocation has a tight, yet existing, possibility to appeal against a judicial decision through which the suppliers offer is excluded. That same supplier can also choose to appeal against the new decision of allocation which is likely to follow the judicial decision.
My conclusion is that small companies are affected in a negative way by the possibilities to raise claims, because of the difficulty they have to bind their resources during the procedure. Also, I conclude that a new decision of allocation should change the matter enough for the “question” in the procedure to change, which renders res judicata impossible. I also agree with the administrative court of appeal in their conclusion in HFD 2013 ref. 36 that public procurement, although its likeness with civil case suits, has a larger similarity to administrative law.},
  author       = {Bengtzén, Jesper},
  keyword      = {Offentlig upphandling,Public procurement,Talerätt,Klagorätt,Förvaltningsprocess},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Överprövning enligt LOU -och förekomsten av negativ rättskraft},
  year         = {2013},
}