Public procurement directives in Finnish practice
Overview: Public Procurement Directives in Finnish Practice
The EU Public Procurement Directives aim to ensure transparency, competition, and non-discrimination in public procurement across member states. They set out rules for awarding contracts for goods, services, and works by public authorities, including municipalities, ministries, and state agencies.
Finnish Implementation
Finland implements the EU Public Procurement Directives mainly through:
Act on Public Contracts (1397/2016) – implementing Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement.
Act on Concession Contracts (1398/2016) – for concession contracts.
Regulations on procurement thresholds, procedures, and remedies.
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) oversees enforcement and compliance.
Key Principles of Public Procurement Directives in Finland
Transparency: All procurement procedures must be clear and accessible.
Equal Treatment: Equal access to tenders for all bidders.
Non-Discrimination: No discrimination based on nationality or origin.
Proportionality: Requirements must be proportionate to contract needs.
Effective Remedies: Right to challenge procurement decisions in administrative courts.
Case Law: Finnish Public Procurement Practice
1. KHO:2019:54 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland)
Facts: A municipal procurement procedure for construction services was challenged by an unsuccessful bidder alleging violations of transparency and equal treatment.
Issue: Whether the contracting authority properly disclosed evaluation criteria and treated bidders equally.
Holding: The court found procedural irregularities. The contracting authority had failed to publish clear evaluation criteria in advance, violating transparency and equal treatment obligations under Finnish procurement law.
Significance: This case underscores the strict adherence to transparency in procurement, reflecting both EU directives and Finnish law.
2. KHO:2017:85 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland)
Facts: Dispute over whether a procurement contract should be annulled due to an alleged breach of proportionality in setting qualification requirements.
Issue: Whether the contracting authority’s qualification requirements were disproportionate, limiting competition unlawfully.
Holding: The court ruled that qualification criteria must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the contract’s nature. Excessive requirements that exclude capable bidders are unlawful.
Significance: This case clarified how Finnish courts apply the proportionality principle from the EU Directive in national procurement.
3. KHO:2018:46
Facts: A bidder contested the award decision alleging failure to consider economic and financial standing appropriately.
Issue: Whether the contracting authority erred in assessing financial guarantees and economic standing criteria.
Holding: The court held that contracting authorities must apply objective, non-discriminatory criteria consistently and provide justifications for rejecting bidders.
Significance: This reinforced procedural fairness and consistency in evaluating bidders’ qualifications.
4. KHO:2016:58
Facts: A procurement for IT services was challenged based on failure to allow sufficient time for submitting tenders.
Issue: Whether the contracting authority complied with minimum deadlines required under Finnish law implementing EU directives.
Holding: The court emphasized that contracting authorities must adhere to legally prescribed minimum times to ensure genuine competition.
Significance: Highlights the importance of procedural rules on timelines to guarantee fairness.
5. KHO:2020:87
Facts: Challenge to a public procurement procedure concerning the evaluation of tenders’ technical merit.
Issue: Whether the contracting authority’s evaluation was transparent and objective.
Holding: The court held that technical evaluation must be based on pre-published criteria and be fully documented. Arbitrary or opaque evaluations breach procurement law.
Significance: Reinforces the transparency and accountability of procurement evaluation in Finnish practice.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding Summary | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KHO:2019:54 | 2019 | Transparency & equal treatment | Evaluation criteria must be published & equal for all | Upholds transparency in procurement |
| KHO:2017:85 | 2017 | Proportionality of qualification req. | Qualification criteria must be necessary & proportionate | Protects competition, limits excessive req. |
| KHO:2018:46 | 2018 | Economic & financial standing eval. | Consistent, objective evaluation & reasons required | Ensures fairness in bidder qualification |
| KHO:2016:58 | 2016 | Tender submission deadlines | Minimum deadlines must be respected | Protects fair competition & access |
| KHO:2020:87 | 2020 | Technical evaluation of tenders | Evaluation must be objective, transparent & documented | Accountability in tender evaluations |
Conclusion
Finnish courts rigorously apply the EU Public Procurement Directives principles through national legislation and judicial scrutiny. The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court plays a critical role in:
Enforcing transparency and equal treatment.
Ensuring proportionality in qualification and technical requirements.
Guaranteeing procedural fairness in evaluation and deadline adherence.
Upholding bidders’ right to challenge decisions.
These cases collectively strengthen the legal framework governing public procurement in Finland, promoting fair competition and good governance aligned with EU rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments