Résultats de recherche

iaelyon - REMCCC 25-26 - Executive Master

Faculté de Philosophie - REMCCC 25-26 - Licences

Faculté de Droit - REMCCC 25-26 - Masters

iaelyon - REMCCC 25-26 - DUCG DCG

none of the tenders was in conditions to comply with the rules of the procedure. Link to the original presented in it were not in accordance with the final amended version of the tender documents namely the bill according to the first version of the documents and not the second and final version. The excluded bidder exclusion of the offer. In addition the NCAC considered that such divergence between the offer and the tender 72 3 of the PCC could not be applied to the case. Considering this the decision confirmed the first instance Judgment of 12th January of 2024, of the NCAC (case 00218/23.8BEPRT), Portugal

Directive 2014 24 EU. In the version in force at the relevant time of the facts the provision has since changed in the last amendment to the Code of November 2022 article 72 3 provided the following The jury certificate in question did not refer to the contents of the offer and consequently was irrelevant for the application according to the appelant the tender documents of the procedure apparently indicated the failure to include include the TCO Certificate in the offer as grounds for exclusion of the offer. Considering the case law of Judgment of 27th January 2022 of the SAC (1st Section) (case 0172/21.0BEBRG), Portugal

evaluated in the tender for the purpose of the award criteria i.e. the Court gave relevance to the nature of the document in question . Secondly the Court referred to the fact that the omission could in any of the bidders did not present this information in the way the tender documents demanded and the other documents in the exact same way as the contracting authority had requested it was possible to reach the said any new information to the offer . The first instance court ruled in favor of the contracting authority Decision of 8th September 2022 of the SAC (1st Section) (case 0399/21.5BEAVR), Portugal

ultimately led to the exclusion of the offer. On the one hand the company did not present the necessary information obliged to control compliance with Labour Law and in the case at hand the calculations present in the documents required in the tender documents by the contracting authority which was meant to allow the contracting compete for public support to employ young workers. Addressing the issue the Court excluded the relevance relevance of the argument because the tender documents specified that the contractor had to take on the existing Judgment of 22nd September 2022 of the SAC (1st Section) (case 0339/21.1BECBR), Portugal

violation should lead to the exclusion of the tender. The first two instances decided for the violation of article locally in the bidder s computer and then there is another signature in the e-platform which seals the offer regardless of the provisions of the following number when the tenderer uploads a file of the bid on the electronic Directive for example does not include this requirement in the references to e-signatures found in its article contrary the signing only took place upon submission in the platform it should be mentioned that in Portugal JUDGMENT OF 9TH NOVEMBER 2023 OF THE SAC (CASE 01033/22.1BELRA), PORTUGAL

upheld the ideas present in the case law that there is no need for a practice to be illegal under the competition g of the PCC correspondent to article 57 4 d of the Directive. The use of article 70 2 g of the PCC as allowed to demonstrate that these principles were not breached. Looking at the facts of the case the SAC offers as being in accordance with the law. The legal ground for exclusion used was apparently article 70 tender. A discussion arose as to whether the offers should be excluded on the basis of an agreement aimed JUDGMENT OF 7TH DECEMBER 2023 OF THE SAC (CASE 0275/22.4BECTB), PORTUGAL