Due diligence obligations of a contracting authority under the EU public procurement law
Date
2023-07-11
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Riigihanked on Eestis õigustatult pideva meedia tähelepanu all. Avalikkusel on õigus teada, kuidas valitsejad käivad ümber meie kõigi ühise rahakotiga. Seda enam, et riigihangetesse suunatava raha hulk on iga-aastaselt väga suur ning vead selle kasutamisel ühiskonda laiemalt riivavad. Viimasel ajal on eriti aktuaalsed ranged eurotoetuste tagasinõuded. Mõnikord võivad vead riigihangete korraldamisel kõigutada ka ministritooli. Kohtupraktika pakub näiteid, kus töösuhteid on lõpetatud töötajate eksimuste tõttu riigihangete reeglite järgimisel. Ka on hankijate töötajaid riigihankeõiguslike rikkumiste tõttu kriminaalkorras karistatud. Kõik need elulised olukorrad taanduvad doktoritöös käsitletavale küsimusele – milline on hoolas hankija?
EL riigihankereeglid on kehtinud juba aastast 1971, mistõttu võiks eeldada, et tegemist pole enam novaatorliku, vaid ammu lahendatud küsimusega. Nii see aga ei ole. Euroopa Liidu riigihankeõigus täna sellele küsimusele ei vasta. Ka valdkondlikus õiguskirjanduses puudub hankija hoolsuskohustuse terviklik käsitlus. Vastupidi, õigusteadlased on maininud hankija hoolsust erinevates juhuslikes hankija tegevust puudutavates etappides. Seega puudub täna EL riigihankeõiguses ühtne õigusteaduslik arusaam hankija hoolsuskohustusest kui kontseptsioonist. Seetõttu töötasin doktoritöö raames läbi Euroopa Kohtu otsuseid, mis käsitlevad otseselt või kaudselt nõudeid hankija hoolsusele. Nende pinnalt tegin järeldusi hoolsa hankija kontseptsiooni üldise olemuse, allikate, eesmärkide ja ka täpsemate elementide kohta.
Leidsin, et hankija hoolsuskohustus EL riigihankeõiguses on valdkondlik organisatsioonipõhine hoolsuskohustus. Selle eesmärk on tagada EL riigihankepõhimõtete rakendamise kaudu EL siseturu toimimine. Nii laieneb hoolsuskohustus EL õiguses hankijatele kui organisatsioonidele, mitte üksikisikutele ning tegemist ei ole üleüldise inimliku hoolsuskohustusega, vaid EL riigihankeõiguse kontekstis aktiveeruva kohustusega. Hankija hoolsuskohustuse eesmärgist tulenevalt peab hankija tegevus olema alati kantud püüdest eelistada hankelepingu sõlmimise avamist laiemalt kogu EL siseturule. Samuti tagada, et pakkujaid ei jäetaks kergekäeliselt riigihangetest kõrvale. Kuigi selline üldistus tundub iseenesestmõistetav, pakub Euroopa Kohtu praktika mitmeid näiteid, kus hankijad teevad täna samu vigu, mis 25 aastat tagasi. Kuna neis näidetes on regulatsioon püsinud direktiivides muutumatuna, tuleb järeldada, et hankeõigusliku teadmuse ülekanne on puudulik. Oma osa on ka sellel, et EL riigihankeõigus ei näe direktiivides ette selgeid nõudeid hankija hoolsusele.
Hankija hoolsuskohustuse kohaldumisalaks saab pidada neid olukordi, mida EL riigihankedirektiivid otsesõnu ei reguleeri, kuid kuhu Euroopa Liidu Kohus on laiendanud EL riigihankepõhimõtete kohaldumise või kuhu EL riigihankepõhimõtted direktiivide regulatsiooni kõrval ilmselgelt laienevad. Selliselt käivitub hankija hoolsuskohustus eelkõige piiripealsetes olukordades, kus tuleb hoolega analüüsida, kas riigihankereeglid kohalduvad ning kui, siis kuidas neid ilma direktiividest tulenevate juhisteta iseseisvalt kaalutlusõiguse alusel rakendada. Lõplikku hankija hoolsuskohustuse ulatust pole täna võimalik defineerida. Hankijatel tuleb arvestada, et selle areng on ja jääb dünaamiliseks.
Public procurements are rightfully under constant media attention in Estonia as the public has the right to know how the rulers handle our common wallet. All the more so as the amount of money spent on public procurement is very large every year and the mistakes in using the funds fracture the society. Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the strict recovery of euro subsidies. Sometimes errors in the organisation of public procurement threaten the ministers’ seats. Jurisprudence provides examples where labour relations have been terminated due to errors of employees in complying with the rules of public procurement. In addition, employees of contracting authorities have been criminally punished for breaches of public procurement law. However, all these vital situations boil down to the question addressed in the doctoral thesis – what is a diligent contracting authority? EU public procurement rules have been in place since 1971, so it could be assumed that this is no longer an innovative issue but a long-overdue one. However, this is not the case. European Union public procurement law does not answer this question today. The legal literature also lacks a comprehensive approach to the contracting authority's due diligence. On the contrary, legal scholars have mentioned the contracting authority’s due diligence at various incidental stages of the public procurement process. Thus, today, EU public procurement law lacks a common legal understanding of the contracting authority's due diligence as a concept. Therefore, in the course of my doctoral thesis, I analysed the judgments of the European Court of Justice dealing directly or indirectly with requirements for the diligence of the contracting authority. From their basis, I drew conclusions about the general nature, sources, and goals, as well as more precise elements of the concept of a diligent contracting authority. I found that the contracting authority's due diligence in EU public procurement law is sector-specific organisational due diligence. It aims to ensure the functioning of the EU internal market through the implementation of the EU's public procurement principles. Thus, due diligence under EU law extends to contracting authorities as organisations, not to individuals, and is not a general obligation of human due diligence but an obligation that is activated in the context of EU public procurement law. In accordance with the objective of the contracting authority's due diligence, the actions of the contracting authority must always be motivated by the aim of always giving priority to the wider opening-up of the award of the contract to the EU internal market. Also, ensure that excluding tenderers from the public procurement process is not taken lightly. Although such a generalisation seems self-evident, the case law of the European Court of Justice provides a number of examples where contracting authorities make the same mistakes as they did 25 years ago. Since, in those examples, the rules have remained unchanged in the Directives, it must be concluded that the transfer of knowledge under procurement law is deficient. The fact that EU public procurement law does not lay down clear requirements for the diligence of the contracting authority in the directives plays a role in that. The scope of the contracting authority's due diligence can be considered to be those situations which are not expressly regulated by the EU public procurement directives but to which the CJEU has extended the application of EU public procurement principles or to which EU public procurement principles clearly extend alongside the regulation of the directives. In this way, the contracting authority's due diligence is triggered, in particular, in borderline situations, where it is necessary to carefully analyse whether the public procurement rules apply and, if so, how to implement them independently on a discretionary basis without any instructions under the directives. The definite scope of the contracting authority's due diligence cannot be defined today. Contracting authorities need to take into account that its development is and will remain dynamic.
Public procurements are rightfully under constant media attention in Estonia as the public has the right to know how the rulers handle our common wallet. All the more so as the amount of money spent on public procurement is very large every year and the mistakes in using the funds fracture the society. Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the strict recovery of euro subsidies. Sometimes errors in the organisation of public procurement threaten the ministers’ seats. Jurisprudence provides examples where labour relations have been terminated due to errors of employees in complying with the rules of public procurement. In addition, employees of contracting authorities have been criminally punished for breaches of public procurement law. However, all these vital situations boil down to the question addressed in the doctoral thesis – what is a diligent contracting authority? EU public procurement rules have been in place since 1971, so it could be assumed that this is no longer an innovative issue but a long-overdue one. However, this is not the case. European Union public procurement law does not answer this question today. The legal literature also lacks a comprehensive approach to the contracting authority's due diligence. On the contrary, legal scholars have mentioned the contracting authority’s due diligence at various incidental stages of the public procurement process. Thus, today, EU public procurement law lacks a common legal understanding of the contracting authority's due diligence as a concept. Therefore, in the course of my doctoral thesis, I analysed the judgments of the European Court of Justice dealing directly or indirectly with requirements for the diligence of the contracting authority. From their basis, I drew conclusions about the general nature, sources, and goals, as well as more precise elements of the concept of a diligent contracting authority. I found that the contracting authority's due diligence in EU public procurement law is sector-specific organisational due diligence. It aims to ensure the functioning of the EU internal market through the implementation of the EU's public procurement principles. Thus, due diligence under EU law extends to contracting authorities as organisations, not to individuals, and is not a general obligation of human due diligence but an obligation that is activated in the context of EU public procurement law. In accordance with the objective of the contracting authority's due diligence, the actions of the contracting authority must always be motivated by the aim of always giving priority to the wider opening-up of the award of the contract to the EU internal market. Also, ensure that excluding tenderers from the public procurement process is not taken lightly. Although such a generalisation seems self-evident, the case law of the European Court of Justice provides a number of examples where contracting authorities make the same mistakes as they did 25 years ago. Since, in those examples, the rules have remained unchanged in the Directives, it must be concluded that the transfer of knowledge under procurement law is deficient. The fact that EU public procurement law does not lay down clear requirements for the diligence of the contracting authority in the directives plays a role in that. The scope of the contracting authority's due diligence can be considered to be those situations which are not expressly regulated by the EU public procurement directives but to which the CJEU has extended the application of EU public procurement principles or to which EU public procurement principles clearly extend alongside the regulation of the directives. In this way, the contracting authority's due diligence is triggered, in particular, in borderline situations, where it is necessary to carefully analyse whether the public procurement rules apply and, if so, how to implement them independently on a discretionary basis without any instructions under the directives. The definite scope of the contracting authority's due diligence cannot be defined today. Contracting authorities need to take into account that its development is and will remain dynamic.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone
Keywords
European Union law, public procurements, procedural law, procurement procedure