SOME ASPECTS OF PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE STATE DEFENSE ORDER WHEN CHALLENGING BIDDING RESULTS

The article deals with some features of the systems of revision of decisions made in the compliance with the results of procurement procedures in the EU Member States in the light of the requirements of EU law. In particular, the author investigates the EU law requirements applied to bodies reviewing decisions in the context of the need to determine the balance between the principle of procedural autonomy of the European Union member States (Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union) and the principles of efficiency and equivalence (derived from jurisprudence interpreting Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union). Also, the paper analyzes the problems arising while determining the applicant’s locus standi, since an excessively narrow interpretation of the notion “interest in obtaining a relevant contract” may serve as an unreasonable restriction for the access to the procedures of reviewing and, more generally, access to justice. The author explores the issues of applying such grounds in order to exclude the procurement participant from the number of bidders on the ground of “commission of a significant violation of the rules of professional activity” in the understanding of EU restrictive measures applied to managers of the procurement participant. There may be situations when the actions of the sole executive body result in the application of restrictive measures and that may be considered as evidence of the commission of a fundamental violation of rules of professional activity; the article considers standings that both confirm this thesis and indicate an excessively broad interpretation of this rule. On the one hand, the European Court of Justice has affirmed that organs of governance, especially the sole executive bodies, have a decisive influence and effective control over business activity to such an extent that their actions can be regarded as actions of the company also with regard to issues of liability. On the other hand, restrictive measures themselves do not, by their nature, constitute a measure of liability. However, the question of whether national authorities have the right to reassess the conclusions of the EU Council with regard to challenging the bidding results remains open.

1. Craig P., de Búrca G. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. — 5th ed. — OUP, 2011.

2. Dima A. M. Doing Business in Europe: Economic Integration Processes, Policies, and the Business Environment. — Springer, 2018.

3. Eliantonio M., Backes C., van Rhee C. H., Spronken T. and Berlee A. Standing up for your right(s) in Europe. A comparative study on Legal Standing (Locus Standi) before the EU and Member States’ Courts. — Intersentia, 2013.

4. La Chimia A. Tied Aid and Development Aid Procurement in the Framework of EU and WTO Law: The Imperative for Change. — Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.

5. Williams-Elegbe S. Fighting Corruption in Public Procurement: A Comparative Analysis of Disqualification or Debarment Measures. — Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012.