Advanced

Upphandlingsskyldighet vid kommunal samverkan? - Teckal- och Hamburgundantagen i en kommunal kontext.

Zillén, Olof LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den här uppsatsen studerar vilka upphandlingsrättsliga konsekvenser som kan uppkomma då kommuner samverkar genom kommunalförbund, samägda kommunala aktiebolag och samverkansavtal. Studier har visat att i princip alla kommuner bedriver någon form av interkommunal samverkan.

När det sker ett utbyte av prestationer som har ekonomiskt värde mellan kommuner eller mellan en kommun och ett kommunalförbund eller samägt bolag är det fråga om ett upphandlingspliktigt avtal. För att kommuner ska kunna samverka utan att upphandla måste kommunerna alltså kunna åberopa något undantag.

Teckal-undantaget kan enbart åberopas vid samverkan i kommunalförbund och samägt aktiebolag. Det mest problematiska för kommunernas del är att samarbetet måste... (More)
Den här uppsatsen studerar vilka upphandlingsrättsliga konsekvenser som kan uppkomma då kommuner samverkar genom kommunalförbund, samägda kommunala aktiebolag och samverkansavtal. Studier har visat att i princip alla kommuner bedriver någon form av interkommunal samverkan.

När det sker ett utbyte av prestationer som har ekonomiskt värde mellan kommuner eller mellan en kommun och ett kommunalförbund eller samägt bolag är det fråga om ett upphandlingspliktigt avtal. För att kommuner ska kunna samverka utan att upphandla måste kommunerna alltså kunna åberopa något undantag.

Teckal-undantaget kan enbart åberopas vid samverkan i kommunalförbund och samägt aktiebolag. Det mest problematiska för kommunernas del är att samarbetet måste uppfylla det s.k. verksamhetsrekvisitet. Detta rekvisit stadgar att 80% av kommunalförbundet eller bolagets verksamhet måste utföras för ägarkommunernas räkning. Problematiken ligger i att det saknas prejudikat om när en intäkt eller utgift kan anses vara kopplad till ägarkommunerna. En annan fråga är hur teleologiskt verksamhetsrekvisitet bör tolkas. Enligt sin ordalydelse är rekvisitet enkelt att kringgå genom att dela upp intern och extern verksamhet i olika juridiska personer.

Hamburg-undantaget kan däremot åberopas vid avtalssamverkan. Utöver ett verksamhetsrekvisit som är identiskt med ovanstående innehåller Hamburg-undantaget två andra rekvisit som kan vara problematiska vid kommunal samverkan.

För det första innehåller Hamburg-undantaget ett samarbetsrekvisit som kan tolkas på två sätt. Antingen som att alla parter måste bidra med naturaprestationer eller att det räcker med alla parter drar ekonomisk nytta av avtalet. För det andra kan Hamburg-undantaget enbart tillämpas på s.k. offentliga tjänster vilket innebär att det enbart kan tillämpas när det rör sig om ett offentligrättsligt åliggande. Detta är problematiskt på två sätt. För det första vill kommuner framförallt avtalssamverka om administrativa tjänster och IT-tjänster vilka alltså inte faller in under begreppet offentliga tjänster. För det andra finns det i nuläget kommunalrättsliga hinder mot att delegera beslutsfattande till andra kommuner vilket innebär att det som faller inom Hamburg-undantagets tillämpningsområde ofta är sådant som det ändå inte går att avtalssamverka om.

Rent upphandlingsrättsligt är det alltså klart fördelaktigt att samverka i kommunalförbund eller samägt aktiebolag. Eventuella icke-juridiska fördelar med samverkan i avtalsform måste därför vägas mot de kostnader och det merarbete som uppstår av en eventuell upphandlingsskyldighet. (Less)
Abstract
This essay explores the consequences in terms of a procurement obligation that could follow when municipalities co-operate through an association of local authorities, a joint municipal company or an inter-municipal contract. Studies have shown that almost all Swedish municipalities conduct some form of inter-municipal co-operation.

When there is an exchange of goods or services of pecuniary interest between municipalities or between one municipality and an association of local authorities or a company this often constitutes a public contract according to the Swedish Public Procurement Act. Municipalities that wants to avoid a tender procedure thus need to invoke an exception.

The Teckal exception can be used when municipalities... (More)
This essay explores the consequences in terms of a procurement obligation that could follow when municipalities co-operate through an association of local authorities, a joint municipal company or an inter-municipal contract. Studies have shown that almost all Swedish municipalities conduct some form of inter-municipal co-operation.

When there is an exchange of goods or services of pecuniary interest between municipalities or between one municipality and an association of local authorities or a company this often constitutes a public contract according to the Swedish Public Procurement Act. Municipalities that wants to avoid a tender procedure thus need to invoke an exception.

The Teckal exception can be used when municipalities co-operate through an association of local authorities or a company. The exception contains three cumulative criterias of which the so-called activities condition is the far most problematic one. To fulfil the activities condition at least 80 % of all tasks performed by the association of local authorities or the company need to be performed for the municipalities that own the association or the company. This criterion is problematic due to a lack of case law. The judiciary has not given any clear instructions as to how you factually determine if a certain cost or income can be derived to the owners. Another open question is how teleological the activities criterion is to be interpreted.

The Hamburg exception can be used on inter-municipal contracts. This exception contains an activities criterion that is identical to the one above. The Hamburg exception also contains two other criterions that can be problematic in a context of inter-municipal co-operation.

First of all, the exception contains a co-operation criterion, which can be interpreted in two different ways. Either as a criterion that demands that all parties perform non-monetary tasks for the parties, or as a criterion that only demands that all parties get economic advantages by pooling their resources.

Second of all, the exception can only be used when the parties co-operate on a public task. This is problematic for two reasons. First and foremost because empirical studies show that municipalities primarily want to use contracts to co-operate on administrative services and IT-services, neither of which can be deemed a public task. It’s also problematic since there are rules in the Swedish Local Government Act that states that a municipality can’t delegate decision-making to another municipality. This creates a catch 22-situation where a co-operative contractual agreement that is exempt from procurement law is often disallowed by municipal law.

The main conclusion of this essay is that it’s clearly beneficial from a legal standpoint to conduct co-operation through associations of local authorities or joint municipal companies rather than inter-municipal contracts. Any non-judicial advantages of co-operating through an inter-municipal contract must be weighed against the costs of undergoing an eventual tender procedure. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Zillén, Olof LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A procurement obligation when conducting inter-municipal co-operation? - The Teckal and Hamburg exceptions in a Swedish municipal context.
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förvaltningsrätt, Upphandlingsrätt, Teckal, Hamburg, Kommunal samverkan, C-107/98, C-480/06, Public Procurement.
language
Swedish
id
8941472
date added to LUP
2018-06-10 15:27:15
date last changed
2018-06-10 15:27:15
@misc{8941472,
  abstract     = {This essay explores the consequences in terms of a procurement obligation that could follow when municipalities co-operate through an association of local authorities, a joint municipal company or an inter-municipal contract. Studies have shown that almost all Swedish municipalities conduct some form of inter-municipal co-operation.

When there is an exchange of goods or services of pecuniary interest between municipalities or between one municipality and an association of local authorities or a company this often constitutes a public contract according to the Swedish Public Procurement Act. Municipalities that wants to avoid a tender procedure thus need to invoke an exception.

The Teckal exception can be used when municipalities co-operate through an association of local authorities or a company. The exception contains three cumulative criterias of which the so-called activities condition is the far most problematic one. To fulfil the activities condition at least 80 % of all tasks performed by the association of local authorities or the company need to be performed for the municipalities that own the association or the company. This criterion is problematic due to a lack of case law. The judiciary has not given any clear instructions as to how you factually determine if a certain cost or income can be derived to the owners. Another open question is how teleological the activities criterion is to be interpreted.

The Hamburg exception can be used on inter-municipal contracts. This exception contains an activities criterion that is identical to the one above. The Hamburg exception also contains two other criterions that can be problematic in a context of inter-municipal co-operation.

First of all, the exception contains a co-operation criterion, which can be interpreted in two different ways. Either as a criterion that demands that all parties perform non-monetary tasks for the parties, or as a criterion that only demands that all parties get economic advantages by pooling their resources. 

Second of all, the exception can only be used when the parties co-operate on a public task. This is problematic for two reasons. First and foremost because empirical studies show that municipalities primarily want to use contracts to co-operate on administrative services and IT-services, neither of which can be deemed a public task. It’s also problematic since there are rules in the Swedish Local Government Act that states that a municipality can’t delegate decision-making to another municipality. This creates a catch 22-situation where a co-operative contractual agreement that is exempt from procurement law is often disallowed by municipal law. 

The main conclusion of this essay is that it’s clearly beneficial from a legal standpoint to conduct co-operation through associations of local authorities or joint municipal companies rather than inter-municipal contracts. Any non-judicial advantages of co-operating through an inter-municipal contract must be weighed against the costs of undergoing an eventual tender procedure.},
  author       = {Zillén, Olof},
  keyword      = {Förvaltningsrätt,Upphandlingsrätt,Teckal,Hamburg,Kommunal samverkan,C-107/98,C-480/06,Public Procurement.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Upphandlingsskyldighet vid kommunal samverkan? - Teckal- och Hamburgundantagen i en kommunal kontext.},
  year         = {2018},
}