Hållbarhetsprincipen i artikel 18.2 i direktiv 2014/24/EU – En princip som alla andra? Ett skandinaviskt perspektiv
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Offentlig upphandling regleras på EU-nivå genom bl.a. direktiv 2014/24/EU. Direktivet öppnade upp för medlemsstaterna att beakta miljöhänsyn vid offentlig upphandling i större utsträckning. I linje med detta fastslog EU-domstolen i målet Tim att det finns en hållbarhetsprincip i artikel 18.2 i direktivet, och att denna princip är likställd med de traditionella upphandlingsrättsliga principerna i artikel 18.1. Principerna i artikel 18.1 har en tvådelad funktion. Dels fungerar de som riktmärke vid tolkning av direktivets andra bestämmelser, dels skapar de rättigheter och skyldigheter utöver vad som explicit stadgas i direktivet. Frågan är om hållbarhetsprincipen i artikel 18.2, i ljuset av målet Tim, har samma tvådelade funktion och i... (More)
- Offentlig upphandling regleras på EU-nivå genom bl.a. direktiv 2014/24/EU. Direktivet öppnade upp för medlemsstaterna att beakta miljöhänsyn vid offentlig upphandling i större utsträckning. I linje med detta fastslog EU-domstolen i målet Tim att det finns en hållbarhetsprincip i artikel 18.2 i direktivet, och att denna princip är likställd med de traditionella upphandlingsrättsliga principerna i artikel 18.1. Principerna i artikel 18.1 har en tvådelad funktion. Dels fungerar de som riktmärke vid tolkning av direktivets andra bestämmelser, dels skapar de rättigheter och skyldigheter utöver vad som explicit stadgas i direktivet. Frågan är om hållbarhetsprincipen i artikel 18.2, i ljuset av målet Tim, har samma tvådelade funktion och i förlängningen om Sveriges genomförande av artikel 18.2 är fullgott.
I svensk rätt är det 4 kap. 3 § LOU, den s.k. bör-regeln, som genomför artikel 18.2 i direktivet. Bör-regeln är, som namnet ger vid handen, inte bindande för upphandlande myndigheter. Syftet med denna uppsats var att utreda huruvida detta genomförande är i överensstämmelse med den bakomliggande EU-rätten, eller om det krävs att Sverige skärper regelverket. I detta syfte undersöktes även hur våra skandinaviska grannländer har tolkat och införlivat artikel 18.2. Därav tillämpades både den rättsdogmatiska och den komparativa metoden i uppsatsen.
Hållbarhetsprincipens eventuella andra funktion – att ge upphov till rättigheter och skyldigheter – är fortfarande oklar. I förhållande till Norge och Danmark fastslogs att Sverige har valt en medelväg. Slutligen konstaterades det att Sverige, för att säkerställa ett lojalt genomförande av EU-rätten, bör ändra bör-regelns lydelse så att det tydligare framgår att regeln utgör en princip. (Less) - Abstract
- Public procurement is regulated at EU level by e.g. Directive 2014/24/EU. The Directive enabled Member States to consider the environment to a greater extent in public procurement. In line with this, the Court of Justice of the EU established, in the case Tim, that there is a principle of sustainability in Article 18(2) of the Directive, and this principle is equivalent to the traditional procurement principles in Article 18(1). The principles in Article 18(1) have a twofold function. On the one hand, they serve as a benchmark for the interpretation of the other provisions of the Directive and, on the other hand, they create rights and obligations beyond what is explicitly stated in the Directive. The question is whether the principle of... (More)
- Public procurement is regulated at EU level by e.g. Directive 2014/24/EU. The Directive enabled Member States to consider the environment to a greater extent in public procurement. In line with this, the Court of Justice of the EU established, in the case Tim, that there is a principle of sustainability in Article 18(2) of the Directive, and this principle is equivalent to the traditional procurement principles in Article 18(1). The principles in Article 18(1) have a twofold function. On the one hand, they serve as a benchmark for the interpretation of the other provisions of the Directive and, on the other hand, they create rights and obligations beyond what is explicitly stated in the Directive. The question is whether the principle of sustainability in Article 18(2), considering the Tim case, has the same dual function and, by extension, whether Sweden's implementation of Article 18(2) is satisfactory.
In Sweden, the “should-rule” (bör-regeln) in Chapter 4 Section 3 of the Public Procurement Act (lag (2016:1145) om offentlig upphandling) implements Article 18(2) of the Directive. The should-rule is, as the name suggests, not binding on contracting authorities. The purpose of this essay was to investigate whether this implementation is in accordance with the underlying EU law, or if it is required that Sweden changes the regulations. To this end, the interpretation and implementation of Article 18(2) by our Scandinavian neighbours was also examined. Therefore, both the legal dogmatic and the comparative method were applied in the essay.
The possible second function of the sustainability principle – to give rise to rights and obligations – is still unclear. In relation to Norway and Denmark, it was established that Sweden has chosen a middle way. Finally, it was noted that, to ensure a loyal implementation of EU law, Sweden should change the wording of the should-rule to make it clearer that the rule constitutes a principle. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9153309
- author
- Myrann Lavesson, Vilma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, komparativ rätt, offentlig upphandling
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9153309
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 12:07:06
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 12:07:06
@misc{9153309,
abstract = {{Public procurement is regulated at EU level by e.g. Directive 2014/24/EU. The Directive enabled Member States to consider the environment to a greater extent in public procurement. In line with this, the Court of Justice of the EU established, in the case Tim, that there is a principle of sustainability in Article 18(2) of the Directive, and this principle is equivalent to the traditional procurement principles in Article 18(1). The principles in Article 18(1) have a twofold function. On the one hand, they serve as a benchmark for the interpretation of the other provisions of the Directive and, on the other hand, they create rights and obligations beyond what is explicitly stated in the Directive. The question is whether the principle of sustainability in Article 18(2), considering the Tim case, has the same dual function and, by extension, whether Sweden's implementation of Article 18(2) is satisfactory.
In Sweden, the “should-rule” (bör-regeln) in Chapter 4 Section 3 of the Public Procurement Act (lag (2016:1145) om offentlig upphandling) implements Article 18(2) of the Directive. The should-rule is, as the name suggests, not binding on contracting authorities. The purpose of this essay was to investigate whether this implementation is in accordance with the underlying EU law, or if it is required that Sweden changes the regulations. To this end, the interpretation and implementation of Article 18(2) by our Scandinavian neighbours was also examined. Therefore, both the legal dogmatic and the comparative method were applied in the essay.
The possible second function of the sustainability principle – to give rise to rights and obligations – is still unclear. In relation to Norway and Denmark, it was established that Sweden has chosen a middle way. Finally, it was noted that, to ensure a loyal implementation of EU law, Sweden should change the wording of the should-rule to make it clearer that the rule constitutes a principle.}},
author = {{Myrann Lavesson, Vilma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Hållbarhetsprincipen i artikel 18.2 i direktiv 2014/24/EU – En princip som alla andra? Ett skandinaviskt perspektiv}},
year = {{2024}},
}