Modernising the EU’s public procurement regime: a blueprint for real simplicity and flexibility

On 20 December 2011 the European Commission published its proposals for two new procedural directives on public procurement, one to replace Public Sector Directive 2004/18 and one to replace Utilities Directive 2004/17, with the stated aims of “simplification” and “flexibilisation” (sic) of the rules to improve value for money. However, following the pattern of the previous reforms in 2004, whilst the proposals do indeed provide for some additional flexibility, they have at the same time in many respects introduced more rigidity and burdensome requirements for Member States. Furthermore, these and other changes proposed will result in a set of rules which is vastly more complex than the current regime that the proposals purport to simplify. In this context, this article proposes a simple blueprint for reforming the directives to in the shape of a single directive for all regulated contracts that is based on the Utilities Directive, although with some modifications. Such an approach will afford the flexibility necessary for Member State to promote their own procurement policies, including value for money, in an appropriate way - in particular, it will allow Member States to authorise use of procedures involving negotiation, allow them to take account of the significant benefits of qualification systems, and facilitate cost-effective approaches to advertising contracts. Further, it will greatly reduce the complexities and uncertainties that apply under the current regulatory regime. This will result both from the greater simplicity of the content of the utilities rules as compared with the rules that apply under the other directives, and from the very existence of a single regime, which, inter alia, will eliminate the need to operate under multiple regimes and to determine the boundaries between them. Thus this approach will promote both the flexibility and simplification objective of the current reform agenda whilst at the same, it is submitted, providing a suitable framework of rules for promoting the single market in public procurement in the EU

The Contractual Liability of the Crown and Its Agents

This article considers the question of the capacity in which Crown agents enter into contracts - whether on behalf of the Crown or in an independent capacity - and examines the significance of this for questions such as the application of Crown immunities. It is argued that the courts\u27 attempt to deal with these questions through the recognition of a dual capacity in Crown agents and the application of the private law of agency is highly unsatisfactory, and it is suggested that this area well illustrates the pressing need to reconsider the dual legal status of the administration

Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU's free movement rules

The ECJ has frequently stated that it is a general rule that “economic” aims are precluded as justifications for restrictions on free movement. This on its face suggests that free movement always and automatically trumps national economic interests. However, in reality the Court’s approach to balancing these different interests is much more complex: often, and increasingly, interests of an economic nature are in fact recognised in the Court’s case law. This paper suggests that this rule precluding economic aims as justifications therefore requires reformulating. It is argued that this is necessary not merely to reflect the reality of the case law, but also to improve the transparency and quality of judicial decision-making. The paper then also examines how the current prohibition might be reformulated in light of both the policy considerations underlying the current formulation (embodying a degree of caution in accepting economic interests) and the problems with that formulation. It is suggested that it is appropriate to maintain a kind of rule against economic objectives, but a more nuanced one concerned solely with measures that have a protectionist aim – the original target of the “general” rule prohibiting economic justifications. On the other hand, with measures that do not have protectionist aims, recognition of economic objectives should be determined on a case-by-case basis that is attuned to the wide variety of economic interests that exist. An important group of measures within the latter category comprises those directed at protection of Member States’ budgetary interests. These warrant special attention and the paper also examines how these interests can be suitably addressed within the context of the framework proposed above. According to the Court’s current approach, in theory budgetary justifications are prohibited as a consequence of the rule against economic justifications in general. However, it is explained that, like certain other economic justifications, they are in reality often permitted, being allowed in certain defined and specific circumstances. Further, where they are permitted, the Court limits application of the proportionality test in that it does not examine whether alternative means might be used to recoup the lost revenue. In this way the Court balances national economic interests and free movement but avoids various constitutional and practical difficulties of applying a proportionality test to do so. It is proposed that the Court should continue with this approach. However, it needs to acknowledge that it does accept justifications that are budgetary in nature, and that these constitute exceptions to any general rule against budgetary justifications. It might also be appropriate, further, to accept budgetary justifications as a general rule in addition to existing, specific, budgetary justifications whenever there is a significant impact on a specific programme budget. However, it is acknowledged that this approach is not consistent with the case law

Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU's free movement rules

The ECJ has frequently stated that it is a general rule that “economic” aims are precluded as justifications for restrictions on free movement. This on its face suggests that free movement always and automatically trumps national economic interests. However, in reality the Court’s approach to balancing these different interests is much more complex: often, and increasingly, interests of an economic nature are in fact recognised in the Court’s case law. This paper suggests that this rule precluding economic aims as justifications therefore requires reformulating. It is argued that this is necessary not merely to reflect the reality of the case law, but also to improve the transparency and quality of judicial decision-making. The paper then also examines how the current prohibition might be reformulated in light of both the policy considerations underlying the current formulation (embodying a degree of caution in accepting economic interests) and the problems with that formulation. It is suggested that it is appropriate to maintain a kind of rule against economic objectives, but a more nuanced one concerned solely with measures that have a protectionist aim – the original target of the “general” rule prohibiting economic justifications. On the other hand, with measures that do not have protectionist aims, recognition of economic objectives should be determined on a case-by-case basis that is attuned to the wide variety of economic interests that exist. An important group of measures within the latter category comprises those directed at protection of Member States’ budgetary interests. These warrant special attention and the paper also examines how these interests can be suitably addressed within the context of the framework proposed above. According to the Court’s current approach, in theory budgetary justifications are prohibited as a consequence of the rule against economic justifications in general. However, it is explained that, like certain other economic justifications, they are in reality often permitted, being allowed in certain defined and specific circumstances. Further, where they are permitted, the Court limits application of the proportionality test in that it does not examine whether alternative means might be used to recoup the lost revenue. In this way the Court balances national economic interests and free movement but avoids various constitutional and practical difficulties of applying a proportionality test to do so. It is proposed that the Court should continue with this approach. However, it needs to acknowledge that it does accept justifications that are budgetary in nature, and that these constitute exceptions to any general rule against budgetary justifications. It might also be appropriate, further, to accept budgetary justifications as a general rule in addition to existing, specific, budgetary justifications whenever there is a significant impact on a specific programme budget. However, it is acknowledged that this approach is not consistent with the case law

Public procurement and access to justice: a legal and empirical study of the UK system

This article presents the findings of an empirical study into suppliers’ behaviour in enforcing EU public procurement law in the UK - where there is a low level of procurement litigation – and the factors influencing this. The study indicates that most suppliers have not perceived any breaches of EU procurement law. It also indicates that, for cases where problems are perceived, recent reforms required by EU law have led to more complaints and legal actions, and enhanced the practical effectiveness of remedies. However, the study also reveals important remaining obstacles to litigation, in particular the high cost of High Court proceedings, fear of reprisals and (although to a lesser extent) the courts’ approach to interim relief. In the light of recent case law, these findings have interesting implications for the UK’s compliance with its EU obligations to provide effective supplier remedies, and suggest a need to consider a different approach

Políticas horizontales en la contratación pública: una taxonomía

Public procurement is widely used to promote objectives of an economic, environmental and social nature, such as the economic development of disadvantaged social groups. This article elaborates a detailed taxonomy of such “horizontal” policies. This study is valuable, first, to facilitate analysis of the practical phenomenon of horizontal policies and of the policy implications of different approaches and, second, to illuminate and develop the relevant regulatory frameworks under national and international regimes. The taxonomy is based on three key distinctions between the following: 1. policies limited to securing compliance with legal requirements and those that go beyond such requirements; 2. policies applied only to the contract awarded and those that go beyond it; and 3. nine different mechanisms by which policies are implemented in the procurement process.La contratación pública es ampliamente utilizada para promover objetivos de naturaleza económica, ambiental y social, como el desarrollo económico de grupos sociales desfavorecidos. En este artículo se elabora una detallada taxonomía de tales políticas “horizontales”. Este estudio es valioso, en primer lugar, para facilitar el análisis del fenómeno práctico de las políticas horizontales y las implicaciones políticas de los diferentes enfoques y, en segundo lugar, para esclarecer y desarrollar los marcos normativos pertinentes bajo los regímenes nacionales e internacionales. La taxonomía se basa en tres distinciones clave entre: 1) políticas limitadas a asegurar el cumplimiento de la ley, y aquellas que van más allá; 2) políticas aplicadas solamente al contrato adjudicado, y aquellas que van más allá; y 3) nueve mecanismos diferentes por los cuales las políticas se implementan en el proceso de contratación

Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU's free movement rules

The ECJ has frequently stated that it is a general rule that “economic” aims are precluded as justifications for restrictions on free movement. This on its face suggests that free movement always and automatically trumps national economic interests. However, in reality the Court’s approach to balancing these different interests is much more complex: often, and increasingly, interests of an economic nature are in fact recognised in the Court’s case law. This paper suggests that this rule precluding economic aims as justifications therefore requires reformulating. It is argued that this is necessary not merely to reflect the reality of the case law, but also to improve the transparency and quality of judicial decision-making. The paper then also examines how the current prohibition might be reformulated in light of both the policy considerations underlying the current formulation (embodying a degree of caution in accepting economic interests) and the problems with that formulation. It is suggested that it is appropriate to maintain a kind of rule against economic objectives, but a more nuanced one concerned solely with measures that have a protectionist aim – the original target of the “general” rule prohibiting economic justifications. On the other hand, with measures that do not have protectionist aims, recognition of economic objectives should be determined on a case-by-case basis that is attuned to the wide variety of economic interests that exist. An important group of measures within the latter category comprises those directed at protection of Member States’ budgetary interests. These warrant special attention and the paper also examines how these interests can be suitably addressed within the context of the framework proposed above. According to the Court’s current approach, in theory budgetary justifications are prohibited as a consequence of the rule against economic justifications in general. However, it is explained that, like certain other economic justifications, they are in reality often permitted, being allowed in certain defined and specific circumstances. Further, where they are permitted, the Court limits application of the proportionality test in that it does not examine whether alternative means might be used to recoup the lost revenue. In this way the Court balances national economic interests and free movement but avoids various constitutional and practical difficulties of applying a proportionality test to do so. It is proposed that the Court should continue with this approach. However, it needs to acknowledge that it does accept justifications that are budgetary in nature, and that these constitute exceptions to any general rule against budgetary justifications. It might also be appropriate, further, to accept budgetary justifications as a general rule in addition to existing, specific, budgetary justifications whenever there is a significant impact on a specific programme budget. However, it is acknowledged that this approach is not consistent with the case law

Políticas horizontales en la contratación pública: una taxonomía

Public procurement is widely used to promote objectives of an economic, environmental and social nature, such as the economic development of disadvantaged social groups. This article elaborates a detailed taxonomy of such “horizontal” policies. This study is valuable, first, to facilitate analysis of the practical phenomenon of horizontal policies and of the policy implications of different approaches and, second, to illuminate and develop the relevant regulatory frameworks under national and international regimes. The taxonomy is based on three key distinctions between the following: 1. policies limited to securing compliance with legal requirements and those that go beyond such requirements; 2. policies applied only to the contract awarded and those that go beyond it; and 3. nine different mechanisms by which policies are implemented in the procurement process.La contratación pública es ampliamente utilizada para promover objetivos de naturaleza económica, ambiental y social, como el desarrollo económico de grupos sociales desfavorecidos. En este artículo se elabora una detallada taxonomía de tales políticas “horizontales”. Este estudio es valioso, en primer lugar, para facilitar el análisis del fenómeno práctico de las políticas horizontales y las implicaciones políticas de los diferentes enfoques y, en segundo lugar, para esclarecer y desarrollar los marcos normativos pertinentes bajo los regímenes nacionales e internacionales. La taxonomía se basa en tres distinciones clave entre: 1) políticas limitadas a asegurar el cumplimiento de la ley, y aquellas que van más allá; 2) políticas aplicadas solamente al contrato adjudicado, y aquellas que van más allá; y 3) nueve mecanismos diferentes por los cuales las políticas se implementan en el proceso de contratación

Modernising the EU’s public procurement regime: a blueprint for real simplicity and flexibility

On 20 December 2011 the European Commission published its proposals for two new procedural directives on public procurement, one to replace Public Sector Directive 2004/18 and one to replace Utilities Directive 2004/17, with the stated aims of “simplification” and “flexibilisation” (sic) of the rules to improve value for money. However, following the pattern of the previous reforms in 2004, whilst the proposals do indeed provide for some additional flexibility, they have at the same time in many respects introduced more rigidity and burdensome requirements for Member States. Furthermore, these and other changes proposed will result in a set of rules which is vastly more complex than the current regime that the proposals purport to simplify.In this context, this article proposes a simple blueprint for reforming the directives to in the shape of a single directive for all regulated contracts that is based on the Utilities Directive, although with some modifications. Such an approach will afford the flexibility necessary for Member State to promote their own procurement policies, including value for money, in an appropriate way - in particular, it will allow Member States to authorise use of procedures involving negotiation, allow them to take account of the significant benefits of qualification systems, and facilitate cost-effective approaches to advertising contracts. Further, it will greatly reduce the complexities and uncertainties that apply under the current regulatory regime. This will result both from the greater simplicity of the content of the utilities rules as compared with the rules that apply under the other directives, and from the very existence of a single regime, which, inter alia, will eliminate the need to operate under multiple regimes and to determine the boundaries between them. Thus this approach will promote both the flexibility and simplification objective of the current reform agenda whilst at the same, it is submitted, providing a suitable framework of rules for promoting the single market in public procurement in the EU