Résultats de recherche

14 h of the LTAIPBG. On the other hand the appellant also argues the lack of legitimacy of the Works Committee to the documents will be granted omitting the information affected by the limit. To exercise the right aware of the existence of the contractual procedures the minimum requirements for participation the conditions analyze the selected Judgment. The case refers to a request presented by the Works Committee of the joint contract and the technical assessment report presented by the UTE awarded the contract. The Regional Government DECISION OF THE NATIONAL COURT SAN, OCTOBER 1, 2020 (JUR 2021, 335708) ECLI:ES:AN:2021:4382, SPAIN

regardless of the provisions of the following number when the tenderer uploads a file of the bid on the electronic violation should lead to the exclusion of the tender. The first two instances decided for the violation of article another means . The other means in the present case would be the e-signature of the offer upon submission procedure one of the excluded bidders challenged the award decision arguing that the successful bidder requested by the contracting authority before their submission on the electronic platform. On the contrary JUDGMENT OF 9TH NOVEMBER 2023 OF THE SAC (CASE 01033/22.1BELRA), PORTUGAL

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

facilities the third to the existence of a water treatment station in the premises the fourth to the existence than the quality of the offers. The factors in question were several. One of them referred to the number disposal facilities which the bidders had access to the second to the size of the refrigerated area in those a station for washing the vehicles which transport the waste the fifth to the existence of a machine including the decisions taken during the procedure since the procurement continued to unfold while the lawsuit JUDGMENT OF 20TH DECEMBER 2023 OF THE SAC (CASE 0693/20.2BELSB), PORTUGAL

that ensures the integrity of the content is applied. On the other hand the PDF file allows the transmission 4 of the PPCC. In its reasoning the Court also mentioned that in this case the principle of the rule consequence which is clear the exclusion of the offer but on the interpretation of the several concepts of its understanding the aggrieved party may always appeal to the SAC for a possible restatement of the uniform decision namely the defense of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Having said that the SAC interpreted JUDGMENT OF 17TH NOVEMBER 2023 OF THE SAC (CASE 210/18.4BELLE), PORTUGAL

under the exclusive competence of the State to regulate the basic conditions that guarantee the equality ruling by the Higher Court of Justice of the Basque Country about the Spanish regulation of the Special Transposition of the rules for the reserved contracts in Art. 20 of Directive 2014 24 EU is in art. 43 of the General entity. Subsequently the High Court of Justice of Galicia confirmed the decision of the Galician administration JUDGMENT The Supreme Court recalls that in addition to the Galician legislation social assistance the Spanish DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, JUNE 1, 2023, (ROJ: STS 2758/2023 – ECLI:ES:TS:2023:2758), SPAIN

system one of the bidders challenged the decision of the contracting authority to award the contract to offer in the value of 1 in one of the two separate prices that the bidders needed to present the price relating have been the overall price and this was not the case. The aggrieved bidder then appealed to the Supreme systemic failure in the offer. The Court decided it was not the case here considering that the accusation made doubt to the contracting authority or the other bidders. In addition the initial phase of the contract DECISION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (1ST SECTION), 21.04.2022 (CASE 03/21.1BEBRG), PORTUGAL

Directive 2014 24 EU. In the version in force at the relevant time of the facts the provision has since been changed in the last amendment to the Code of November 2022 article 72 3 provided the following The jury will by the second instance Central Administrative Court of the North which confirmed the ruling. The case 56 3 of the Directive does not contain the same reference case law of the ECJ has accepted the nature tenders. The Court also referred to the fact that the certificate in question did not refer to the contents DECISION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (1ST SECTION), 27.01.2022 (CASE 0172/21.0BEBRG), PORTUGAL

ultimately led to the exclusion of the offer. On the one hand the company did not present the necessary information workers. Addressing the issue the Court excluded the relevance of the argument because the tender documents and in the case at hand the calculations present in the documents pointed to a breach of the rules on reconcile with the wording of the Directive. Art. 69 2 f of the Directive only mentions the possibility required in the tender documents by the contracting authority which was meant to allow the contracting DECISION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (1ST SECTION), 22.09.2022 (CASE 0339/21.1BECBR), PORTUGAL

evaluated in the tender for the purpose of the award criteria i.e. the Court gave relevance to the nature of information in the way the tender documents demanded and the other bidders argued that for this reason the offer of the document in question . Secondly the Court referred to the fact that the omission could in any referring to the scope of admissible or inadmissible clarification of offers during the tender phase. The tender any new information to the offer . The first instance court ruled in favor of the contracting authority DECISION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (1ST SECTION), 08.09.2022 (CASE 0399/21.5BEAVR), PORTUGAL