Advanced

Takvolymer i förhållande till ändringar i ramavtal - Med särskilt fokus på de frågor som uppkommit med anledning av EU-domstolens dom i målet Coopservice

Rist, Julia LU (2020) JURM02 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En betydande del av alla offentliga upphandlingar leder till upprättande av ramavtal. Ramavtal är avtal som fastställer villkoren för kontrakt som senare ska tilldelas.

EU-domstolen har i en dom från 2018 behandlat ett för upphandlingsområdet nytt fenomen. Domen rör takvolymer i ramavtal vilket avser en bestämd gräns för hur mycket som är tillåtet att avropa. Eftersom 2014 års direktiv och sedermera LOU innehåller bestämmelser som ger vissa möjligheter till ändringar av ramavtal har det varit av intresse att närmare analysera hur bestämmelserna förhåller sig till domen. Bestämmelserna behandlar fyra olika kategorier av ändringar enligt följande: (i) ändringar av mindre värde, (ii) ändringar till följd av oförutsebara omständigheter,... (More)
En betydande del av alla offentliga upphandlingar leder till upprättande av ramavtal. Ramavtal är avtal som fastställer villkoren för kontrakt som senare ska tilldelas.

EU-domstolen har i en dom från 2018 behandlat ett för upphandlingsområdet nytt fenomen. Domen rör takvolymer i ramavtal vilket avser en bestämd gräns för hur mycket som är tillåtet att avropa. Eftersom 2014 års direktiv och sedermera LOU innehåller bestämmelser som ger vissa möjligheter till ändringar av ramavtal har det varit av intresse att närmare analysera hur bestämmelserna förhåller sig till domen. Bestämmelserna behandlar fyra olika kategorier av ändringar enligt följande: (i) ändringar av mindre värde, (ii) ändringar till följd av oförutsebara omständigheter, (iii) ändringar som inte är väsentliga, samt (iv) ändringar som görs med stöd av en ändrings- eller optionsklausul.

Uppsatsförfattarens slutsatser är att ändringar av mindre värde, ändringar till följd av oförutsebara omständigheter och ändringar som inte är väsentliga ska kunna genomföras trots att takvolymen överskrids. Uppsatsförfattaren når denna slutsats eftersom en tillämpning av bestämmelserna i sig inte kan anses strida mot det syfte som takvolymer är tänkta att uppfylla. Om möjligheterna till lagenliga avtalsändringar skulle begränsas genom angiven takvolym skulle detta även medföra att upphandlande myndigheter angav oproportionerligt höga volymer. Detta skulle felaktigt utesluta leverantörer som annars hade kunnat delta i en upphandling. Genom att tillåta vissa ändringar ökar således förutsättningarna för flexibla ramavtal där risk för kringgående av upphandlingslagstiftningen minimeras.

Vad gäller den fjärde kategorin, ändringar som görs med stöd av ändrings- eller optionsklausuler, är situationen annorlunda. Övervägande skäl talar för att alla typer av ändrings- och optionsklausuler ska ingå i ramavtalets takvolym. Således kan bestämmelsen som reglerar ändrings- eller optionsklausuler, till skillnad från övriga ändringsbestämmelser, aldrig tillämpas för att ändra takvolymen.

Om ett ramavtal ändras i strid med ovanstående ändringsbestämmelser anses ändringen utgöra en otillåten direktupphandling. Detta medför bland annat risk för ogiltigförklaring. Det ankommer på rätten att besluta huruvida ogiltighet endast avser ändringen som sådan eller ramavtalet som helhet. Vad gäller ändringar av takvolymer tyder det mesta dock på att en ogiltigförklaring endast skulle avse själva ändringen. (Less)
Abstract
A significant part of all public procurements leads to the conclusion of framework agreements. Framework agreements are agreements that define the terms of contracts to be awarded later.

In a 2018 judgment, the European Court of Justice dealt with a new phenomenon for the procurement area. The judgment concerns determined volumes in framework agreements, which refer to a specific limit on how much contracting authorities are entitled to call off. Since the procurement legislation contains provisions that enable certain modifications of framework agreements during their term, it has been of interest to analyze in more detail how these provisions relate to the judgment. The statutory provisions cover four categories of modifications: (i)... (More)
A significant part of all public procurements leads to the conclusion of framework agreements. Framework agreements are agreements that define the terms of contracts to be awarded later.

In a 2018 judgment, the European Court of Justice dealt with a new phenomenon for the procurement area. The judgment concerns determined volumes in framework agreements, which refer to a specific limit on how much contracting authorities are entitled to call off. Since the procurement legislation contains provisions that enable certain modifications of framework agreements during their term, it has been of interest to analyze in more detail how these provisions relate to the judgment. The statutory provisions cover four categories of modifications: (i) modifications of lesser value, (ii) modifications due to unforeseeable circumstances, (iii) modifications that are not substantial, and (iv) modifications based on a review or option clause.

The author's conclusions are that modifications of lesser value, modifications due to unforeseeable circumstances and modifications that are not substantial should be possible despite the determined volume being exceeded. The author reaches this conclusion since the provisions regarding modifications as such cannot be considered contrary to the purpose that determined volumes are intended to fulfill. If the room for legal contract modifications would be restricted by the stated determined volume, there is a risk that contracting authorities would state disproportionately high volumes. This would erroneously exclude economic operators who otherwise would have been able to participate in a procurement. By allowing certain modifications, conditions for flexible framework agreements increase where the risk of circumventing of procurement legislation is minimized.

Regarding the fourth category, modifications based on review or option clauses, the situation is different. There are compelling reasons why all types of review and option clauses are to be included in the determined volume of the framework agreement. Thus, contrary to the other statutory provisions that enable modifications, the provision regarding review and option clauses can never be applied to change the determined volume.

If a framework agreement is modified in contravention of the above provisions, the modification is considered to be an unauthorized direct procurement. This entails, among other things, the risk of annulment. It is up to the court to decide whether annul refers only to the modification as such or the framework agreement as a whole. However, most things indicate that the annulment would only refer to the modification itself. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rist, Julia LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Determined volumes in framework agreements
course
JURM02 20201
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Offentlig upphandling, EU-rätt.
language
Swedish
id
9009905
date added to LUP
2020-06-13 12:42:40
date last changed
2020-06-13 12:42:40
@misc{9009905,
  abstract     = {A significant part of all public procurements leads to the conclusion of framework agreements. Framework agreements are agreements that define the terms of contracts to be awarded later.

In a 2018 judgment, the European Court of Justice dealt with a new phenomenon for the procurement area. The judgment concerns determined volumes in framework agreements, which refer to a specific limit on how much contracting authorities are entitled to call off. Since the procurement legislation contains provisions that enable certain modifications of framework agreements during their term, it has been of interest to analyze in more detail how these provisions relate to the judgment. The statutory provisions cover four categories of modifications: (i) modifications of lesser value, (ii) modifications due to unforeseeable circumstances, (iii) modifications that are not substantial, and (iv) modifications based on a review or option clause.

The author's conclusions are that modifications of lesser value, modifications due to unforeseeable circumstances and modifications that are not substantial should be possible despite the determined volume being exceeded. The author reaches this conclusion since the provisions regarding modifications as such cannot be considered contrary to the purpose that determined volumes are intended to fulfill. If the room for legal contract modifications would be restricted by the stated determined volume, there is a risk that contracting authorities would state disproportionately high volumes. This would erroneously exclude economic operators who otherwise would have been able to participate in a procurement. By allowing certain modifications, conditions for flexible framework agreements increase where the risk of circumventing of procurement legislation is minimized.

Regarding the fourth category, modifications based on review or option clauses, the situation is different. There are compelling reasons why all types of review and option clauses are to be included in the determined volume of the framework agreement. Thus, contrary to the other statutory provisions that enable modifications, the provision regarding review and option clauses can never be applied to change the determined volume.

If a framework agreement is modified in contravention of the above provisions, the modification is considered to be an unauthorized direct procurement. This entails, among other things, the risk of annulment. It is up to the court to decide whether annul refers only to the modification as such or the framework agreement as a whole. However, most things indicate that the annulment would only refer to the modification itself.},
  author       = {Rist, Julia},
  keyword      = {Offentlig upphandling,EU-rätt.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Takvolymer i förhållande till ändringar i ramavtal - Med särskilt fokus på de frågor som uppkommit med anledning av EU-domstolens dom i målet Coopservice},
  year         = {2020},
}