Advanced

Talerätt i LOU-mål - En ändamålsenlig reglering eller ej?

Arnesson, Mattias LU (2015) LAGF03 20152
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Statliga och kommunala myndigheter inköp av byggentreprenader, varor, tjänster och byggkoncessioner måste föregås av ett upphandlingsförfarande enligt Lag om offentlig upphandling (2007:1091). En leverantör som inte anser att myndigheten agerat korrekt kan ansöka om överprövning i förvaltningsdomstol av upphandlingen eller ett avtal som myndigheten ingått enligt 16 kap. 4 § lagen om offentlig upphandling.

Lagstiftningen bygger på EU-direktiv som har uppnått direkt effekt och har leverantörer har en rätt till effektiva rättsmedel för att utöva de rättigheter de garanterats i EU-rätten. Området är ett av få där EU-rätten har ett starkt processuellt inslag, trots utgångspunkten om principen om nationell autonomi.

Talerättsfrågor som... (More)
Statliga och kommunala myndigheter inköp av byggentreprenader, varor, tjänster och byggkoncessioner måste föregås av ett upphandlingsförfarande enligt Lag om offentlig upphandling (2007:1091). En leverantör som inte anser att myndigheten agerat korrekt kan ansöka om överprövning i förvaltningsdomstol av upphandlingen eller ett avtal som myndigheten ingått enligt 16 kap. 4 § lagen om offentlig upphandling.

Lagstiftningen bygger på EU-direktiv som har uppnått direkt effekt och har leverantörer har en rätt till effektiva rättsmedel för att utöva de rättigheter de garanterats i EU-rätten. Området är ett av få där EU-rätten har ett starkt processuellt inslag, trots utgångspunkten om principen om nationell autonomi.

Talerättsfrågor som har med förvaltningsdomstolens avgörande att göra regleras i Förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291). En ansökande leverantör vars ansökan avslås har talerätt mot detta beslut. Domstolen är dock fri att besluta om val av åtgärd och leverantören kan inte överklaga valet i sig.

Efter en kursändring i rättspraxis har också leverantörer som riskerar att uteslutas eller att få sina anbud obeaktade av överprövningen erkänts inträde i målet och talerätt mot detta.. Det kvarstår dock oklarheter i gällande rätt. Talerätten är inte komplett behandlad i praxis och huruvida den gällande ordningen överenstämmer med EU-rätten är inte klar.

Vidare visar författarens undersökning av kammarrättsdomar under 2015 att tillämpningen av praxis inte är enhetlig. Domstolarna utesluter leverantörer via domskäl och domslut och ofta tillerkänns inte leverantörer talerätt mot de domar där uteslutningen sker i domskäl. Den nuvarande ordningen är otillfredställande och måste korrigeras antingen genom lagstiftning eller praxis. (Less)
Abstract
Swedish authorities that intend to purchase public goods, services and public works contracts are obliged to initiate a public procurement procedure according to the Swedish law of Public Procurement Act (2007:1091). An economic operator can initiate a review in a public administrative court if the authority has not procured correctly according to Chapter 16 § 4 of the Public Procurement Act.

The legislation is base upon EU-directives, which have attained direct effect, and an economic operator therefore have the right to effective legal remedies for the rights provided in EU-law. This branch of law is one of few where EU-law have a major procedural component.

The right of litigation against the administrative court's ruling is... (More)
Swedish authorities that intend to purchase public goods, services and public works contracts are obliged to initiate a public procurement procedure according to the Swedish law of Public Procurement Act (2007:1091). An economic operator can initiate a review in a public administrative court if the authority has not procured correctly according to Chapter 16 § 4 of the Public Procurement Act.

The legislation is base upon EU-directives, which have attained direct effect, and an economic operator therefore have the right to effective legal remedies for the rights provided in EU-law. This branch of law is one of few where EU-law have a major procedural component.

The right of litigation against the administrative court's ruling is regulated in the Swedish law of Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971:291). The initiating economic operator have the right to litigate if it's petition is rebuked. However, the court decides what measures that should be undertaken and the operator can not litigate against this choice.

Case-law was changed in 2011 and economic operators which were at risk to be disqualified or have their proposals dismissed were allowed to enter into proceedings and granted the right to litigate if these measures were decided in the ruling. The right to litigate is not fully defined in case-law och whether the curent case-law is compatible with EU-law is unclear.

Moreover, the author's investigation in court practice of the Administrative Courts of Appeal show that adjuciation of the case law is not uniform. The courts disqualify in either the grounds of their decisions or in their judgement. The right to litigate is usually not afforded to economic operators disqualified in the former way and the courts can arbitrarily decide whether to grant the right to litigate. This is not acceptable and must be changed, either through legislation or case law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Arnesson, Mattias LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20152
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Offentlig rätt, EU-rätt, Lag om offentlig upphandling
language
Swedish
id
8510152
date added to LUP
2016-02-08 10:48:56
date last changed
2016-02-08 10:48:56
@misc{8510152,
  abstract     = {Swedish authorities that intend to purchase public goods, services and public works contracts are obliged to initiate a public procurement procedure according to the Swedish law of Public Procurement Act (2007:1091). An economic operator can initiate a review in a public administrative court if the authority has not procured correctly according to Chapter 16 § 4 of the Public Procurement Act.

The legislation is base upon EU-directives, which have attained direct effect, and an economic operator therefore have the right to effective legal remedies for the rights provided in EU-law. This branch of law is one of few where EU-law have a major procedural component.

The right of litigation against the administrative court's ruling is regulated in the Swedish law of Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971:291). The initiating economic operator have the right to litigate if it's petition is rebuked. However, the court decides what measures that should be undertaken and the operator can not litigate against this choice.

Case-law was changed in 2011 and economic operators which were at risk to be disqualified or have their proposals dismissed were allowed to enter into proceedings and granted the right to litigate if these measures were decided in the ruling. The right to litigate is not fully defined in case-law och whether the curent case-law is compatible with EU-law is unclear.

Moreover, the author's investigation in court practice of the Administrative Courts of Appeal show that adjuciation of the case law is not uniform. The courts disqualify in either the grounds of their decisions or in their judgement. The right to litigate is usually not afforded to economic operators disqualified in the former way and the courts can arbitrarily decide whether to grant the right to litigate. This is not acceptable and must be changed, either through legislation or case law.},
  author       = {Arnesson, Mattias},
  keyword      = {Offentlig rätt,EU-rätt,Lag om offentlig upphandling},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Talerätt i LOU-mål - En ändamålsenlig reglering eller ej?},
  year         = {2015},
}