Contract award review precludes entity from concluding contract automatically upon application filing under EU Regulations.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Court ruled that a contracting entity is automatically barred from concluding a contract once a review application is filed under Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Regulations, regardless of the standstill period's expiration. The appellant argued for judicial discretion to allow contract completion before the review's final determination, but the Court found no such jurisdiction in the Regulations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed because the statutory framework mandates an automatic preclusion without requiring a separate motion.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertArticle 8(1)(b) of the European Communities (Award of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) (Review Procedures) Regulations, 2010; Article 8(2) of the same Regulations: The filing of a review application automatically precludes the contracting entity from concluding the contract, rendering any request for judicial permission to proceed inadmissible.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVolltext
THE SUPREME COURT
[Appeal No: 274/14]
Clarke J.
Laffoy J.
Dunne J.
Between/
OCS One Complete Solutions Limited
Applicant/Respondent
and
Dublin Airport Authority plc
Respondent/Appellant
and
Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited t/a Momentum Support
Notice Party
Ruling of the Court delivered on the 31st July, 2014 by Mr. Justice Clarke
1. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, is in a position to indicate its principal conclusions on
the issues which arise on this appeal. A full judgment outlining the reasoning of the Court will be delivered in due course.
2. However, the Court has concluded that:-
(a) Once an application is made to the Court under the provisions of Article 8(1)(b) of the European Communities (Award
of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) (Review Procedures) Regulations, 2010 ("the Regulations") seeking the review of a
decision of a contracting entity to award a contract to a particular tenderer or candidate, the relevant contracting entity
is precluded from concluding the contract in question under the provisions of Art. 8(2) of the Regulation notwithstanding
the fact that the relevant application to the Court is initiated after the standstill period provided for in the Regulation has
expired. Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the applicant to make a specific application by motion to the Court in order
that such a preclusion come into effect. Rather the preclusion arises automatically on the bringing of the substantive
application under Art.8(1)(b).
(b) The Regulation does not confer on the courts a jurisdiction to entertain an application by the contracting entity
concerned to be permitted to conclude the relevant contract prior to the determination of the application for review;
(c) In those circumstances the question of the criteria which would apply on such an application, were one permitted to
be made, does not arise; and
(d) It is also unnecessary and inappropriate to determine the issues which were debated on this appeal concerning the
merits of the outcome of such an application on the facts of this case.
3. In those circumstances the appeal will, when the Court has an opportunity to deliver its full judgment, be dismissed and the notice
to vary allowed.