• About us
    • About Lindahl
    • How we work
    • Said about Lindahl
    • Press
    • Find us
    • Privacy
  • Areas
    • Commercial dispute resolution
    • IT/Tech
    • Intellectual property
    • Life Sciences
    • M&A
    • All areas
  • Our people
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Helsingborg
    • Örebro
  • Latest news
    • Cases and transactions
    • News
    • Events
    • Knowledge
    • Portraits
  • Offices
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Örebro
    • Helsingborg

More efficient review of public procurements

  • Home
  • Latest news
  • Knowledge
  • 2022
  • More efficient review of public procurements

On 20 January 2022, the Government submitted a proposal referred to the Council on Legislation regarding more efficient review of public procurements. The legislative proposals aim to make court proceedings in public procurement cases faster and more predictable for both procuring authorities and for suppliers. It is proposed that the legislative amendments should enter into force on 1 July 2022.


A statutory requirement for urgency

The Government proposes that a requirement for urgency be introduced for cases on review of a procurement and cases on review of the validity of a contract in accordance with all four procurement laws. Cases that take a long time to settle give rise to difficulties for procuring authorities when planning their activities and anticipating the need for possible cover purchases during the period for which the review lasts. According to the Government, a requirement for urgency also benefits suppliers, particularly small and medium-sized suppliers, because their financial and organisational capacity to pursue court proceedings is often limited.

The purpose of the requirement for urgency in question is to ensure that cases are normally settled within a few months. A procurement case should therefore not be left without action for a long period. However, the fact that the cases must be prioritised does not mean any restriction of the court’s obligation to investigate – it is still the court that decides when a case has been sufficiently investigated so it can be settled. The proposal is therefore that the length of the processing periods that can be accepted will still be assessed on the basis of the circumstances and the complexity of each individual case in future. In view of this, the Government proposes only an obligation to deal with cases promptly instead of a fixed deadline.



Limitation periods at the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal

A so-called limitation period means – in somewhat simplified terms – that after a certain moment, a party can no longer introduce new material into court proceedings, for example. The Government is now proposing that limitation periods be introduced in cases relating to public procurement with regard to review of the procurement and review of the validity of the contract.

It must be noted that the Government’s proposal contains no obligation for a supplier to point out errors in the procurement document at an early stage. The Supreme Administrative Court has already established that pointing out errors acquires significance when assessing whether the supplier has suffered or risks suffering damage (read more about the Supreme Administrative Court rulings in question here), which the Government considers to be sufficient incentive for suppliers to point out errors at an early stage.

However, the referral to the Council on Legislation contains proposals for limitation periods at both the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal. As far as the Administrative Court is concerned, the Government proposes that the supplier may not cite new circumstances as a basis for its action more than two weeks from the date on which the application was received by the Administrative Court, unless the supplier credibly establishes that it was unable to cite the circumstance earlier or otherwise has a valid excuse for not doing so. The proposal means that the supplier needs to carry out reasonable investigation and adopt the measures that are possible within the time limit, otherwise it cannot cite a circumstance that later becomes known to the supplier.

No limitation is proposed for the procuring authority at the Administrative Court and the authority can therefore cite new grounds and circumstances in support of rejecting the application throughout the proceedings in the Administrative Court.

As far as the Administrative Court of Appeal is concerned, the Government proposes that a party may only cite a circumstance as a basis for its action at the Administrative Court of Appeal if the party has credibly established that it was unable to cite the circumstance at the Administrative Court or otherwise had a valid excuse for not doing so. The limitation period at the Administrative Court of Appeal thus applies to both the supplier and the procuring authority.

However, the limitation periods only apply to new circumstances and not when citing new evidence. Under the proposal, the limitation periods also do not apply if an authority – during an ongoing review – enters into an agreement in breach of the contractual block and the supplier then wishes to change its action so it relates to a review of the validity of a contract. Exceptions to the limitation periods are also proposed if an authority cites new circumstances before the Administrative Court of Appeal as a basis for arguing that a contract must continue to exist due to an overriding public purpose.

 



No introduction of an application fee and liability for procedural costs

In order to reduce the number of appeals, it has previously been proposed that a fee for applying for review and mutual liability for procedural costs should be introduced. Liability for procedural costs means that the losing party in review proceedings would be obliged to reimburse the winning party for its court costs.

However, the Government considers that an application fee and mutual liability for procedural costs are not appropriate measures for reducing the number of unwarranted applications for review in court. This is partly due to the fact that it may cause small suppliers and suppliers with fewer resources to refrain from applying for review.

 



Time limits

Review of the validity of a contract not subject to the Directive

There is a proposal to shorten the time limit for applying for review of the validity of a contract not subject to the Directive from six months to 30 days if the authority has subsequently announced the results of the procurement.

Action for damages

There is a proposal to change the time limit for bringing an action for damages from within one year from the moment when a contract has been entered into between the procuring authority and a supplier to within one year from the date when the plaintiff became aware of or should have become aware of the fact that a contract had been entered into. However, if a contract has been declared invalid by a court, the action may nevertheless always be brought within one year from the moment when the ruling became firm and final.

Exclusion of suppliers

Under the proposal, a procuring authority may not allow a judgment older than five years or events older than three years to form the basis for excluding a supplier due to offences or misconduct in general. The current regulations contain no such time limit.

 


Do you want to know more or did the article give rise to other questions? You are very welcome to get in touch with one of the contact persons for public procurement below or your regular contact at Lindahl.

Public procurement/public sector

Lindahl has solid experience in providing legal advice concerning the public sector and public procurement.

Visit page

Related

  • 1/19/2022 9:54:25 AM An obligation to take into consideration direct procurements “of the same type” disappears
  • 1/18/2022 6:06:45 PM New AMA AF
  • 1/14/2022 6:05:29 PM The Supreme Administrative Court decides on matters relating to ceiling volume and – above all – damage assessment
  • 12/14/2021 12:23:58 PM New contract limits in 2022 – Including in legal services
  • 12/13/2021 2:23:28 PM Lease agreements have been deemed to contain disguised services subject to procurement – It did not help that the public works contracts would be procured
  • 11/8/2021 2:15:43 PM Community properties – attractive but complicated?
  • 10/8/2021 11:00:38 AM A simplified regulatory framework for procurements
  • 10/8/2021 11:48:19 AM Procured framework agreements always mean exclusive rights – or do they?

Contact

  • Hanna Lundqvist

    Göteborg

    hanna.lundqvist@lindahl.se +46 731 472 782
  • Anduena Krasnigi

    Göteborg

    anduena.krasnigi@lindahl.se +46 731 472 773
Pages
  • Start
  • About us
  • Areas
  • Our people
  • Latest news
  • Privacy
Our offices
  • Stockholm reception.stockholm@lindahl.se +46 8 527 70 800
  • Göteborg reception.goteborg@lindahl.se +46 31 799 10 00
  • Malmö reception.malmo@lindahl.se +46 40 664 66 50
  • Uppsala reception.uppsala@lindahl.se +46 18 16 18 50
  • Örebro reception.orebro@lindahl.se +46 19 20 89 00
  • Helsingborg reception.helsingborg@lindahl.se +46 42 17 53 00
Social media
  • Connect with us on social networks: Instagram, Linkedin, Youtube, Facebook,

Disclaimer

The material and information on this site is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Please note that all images on Lindahl's website, www.lindahl.se, are subject to intellectual property protection and downloading, publication, copying and/or other use of the images requires the written consent of the rights holder. You'll find Advokatfirman Lindahl KB's general terms and conditions here.

Some cookies are essential, others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is used. For more information, please visit our Cookie Policy.

Essential Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the functionality of the site and cannot be disabled.

Analytics Cookies>

We use Analytics cookies to collect information that gives us insight into how our website is being used. We anonymize IP addresses in Google Analytics. By clicking on Decline we won't save theese cookies.

Decline
We use cookies to get insights on how our site is used and give our visitors the best possible experience