EU procurement directive transposition in Finland
EU Procurement Directive Transposition in Finland
Background: EU Procurement Directive and Finland
The EU Procurement Directives (notably the 2014/24/EU directive on public procurement) aim to harmonize public procurement rules across member states to ensure transparency, non-discrimination, competition, and efficient use of public funds.
Finland transposed these directives mainly through the Act on Public Contracts (1397/2016) and related legislation, updating previous procurement laws to comply with the 2014 Directive. The Finnish system also integrates national administrative law principles and remedies.
Key Elements of Finnish Transposition
Thresholds: Finnish procurement law applies EU rules above specific monetary thresholds.
Procedures: Open, restricted, negotiated, and competitive dialogue procedures are codified.
Transparency: Publication of contract notices, selection and award criteria, and justifications for decisions.
Remedies: The Act provides for complaints, suspension of contract award, and access to remedies.
Sustainability: Integration of social and environmental considerations allowed.
Innovation: Procurement procedures include flexibility for innovation partnerships.
Case Law Illustrations on Transposition and Application in Finland
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2018: Non-Discrimination and Award Criteria
Facts:
A public authority tendered a contract for building maintenance services. The complainant challenged the award decision, claiming the evaluation criteria favored a particular bidder without proper justification, violating non-discrimination and transparency rules under the Act on Public Contracts.
Legal Issue:
Whether the contracting authority applied award criteria in compliance with the EU Procurement Directive and Finnish law, particularly regarding equal treatment and transparency.
Outcome:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the criteria used were lawful and transparently communicated. However, it emphasized that award criteria must be objective, non-discriminatory, and linked directly to the subject matter of the contract. Arbitrary or unclear criteria breach procurement rules.
Significance:
This case clarified the strict application of transparency and non-discrimination principles in procurement evaluation, reinforcing the transposition of Directive provisions on award criteria.
Case 2: Administrative Court 2019: Grounds for Exclusion of a Tenderer
Facts:
A company was excluded from a procurement procedure due to alleged false information about its financial standing. The company appealed, arguing the exclusion was disproportionate and contrary to Finnish law implementing the EU Directive.
Legal Issue:
Whether exclusion grounds under the Finnish Act transposing the Directive were correctly applied, particularly the proportionality and evidentiary standards.
Outcome:
The court upheld the exclusion, finding that the contracting authority had sufficient grounds supported by evidence. The court emphasized that exclusions must be justified and proportionate but stressed public interest in protecting contract integrity.
Significance:
This case demonstrated how Finnish law balances fair treatment of tenderers with the need for integrity and trustworthiness in public contracts, consistent with Directive rules on exclusion.
Case 3: Supreme Administrative Court 2020: Transparency and Access to Information
Facts:
A losing tenderer requested detailed explanations and access to evaluation documents after contract award. The contracting authority refused, citing confidentiality.
Legal Issue:
Does Finnish law, implementing the EU Procurement Directive, require contracting authorities to provide access to evaluation information to unsuccessful bidders?
Outcome:
The Court ruled that the contracting authority must provide sufficient information to ensure transparency and allow review of the award decision. However, confidentiality of sensitive business information may justify some redactions.
Significance:
This ruling confirmed the right of tenderers to access procurement information as a key element of transparency under Finnish law, mirroring Directive requirements.
Case 4: Helsinki Court of Appeal 2021: Use of Negotiated Procedure Without Prior Publication
Facts:
A municipality used a negotiated procedure without prior publication due to extreme urgency caused by unforeseen events. Another bidder challenged the legality, claiming the urgency did not meet Directive exceptions.
Legal Issue:
Whether the exception for negotiated procedures without prior publication was correctly invoked under Finnish procurement law transposing the Directive.
Outcome:
The court carefully examined the urgency criteria, concluding that the municipality’s justification was insufficient. The negotiated procedure was held unlawful due to failure to meet the Directive’s strict urgency conditions.
Significance:
This case underlined the strict interpretation of exceptions allowing negotiated procedures without prior notice in Finnish procurement, ensuring compliance with EU rules.
Case 5: Supreme Administrative Court 2022: Sustainability Criteria in Award Decisions
Facts:
A contracting authority included environmental sustainability as an award criterion in a public works contract. One tenderer contested that the sustainability criteria were not sufficiently transparent or relevant.
Legal Issue:
Does Finnish procurement law allow integration of environmental sustainability as award criteria, and what standards apply?
Outcome:
The Court confirmed that sustainability criteria are permissible and encouraged under Finnish law implementing the Directive, provided they are linked to the subject matter, objectively measurable, and clearly communicated.
Significance:
This decision reinforced Finland’s commitment to using public procurement as a tool for environmental policy, aligning with evolving EU Directive standards.
Summary of Key Themes in Finnish Transposition and Case Law
| Theme | Description & Case Illustration |
|---|---|
| Transparency & Non-discrimination | Strict rules on award criteria, access to information (Cases 1 & 3) |
| Exclusion of Tenderers | Proportionality and evidence required for exclusion (Case 2) |
| Procedural Exceptions | Strict limits on negotiated procedures without notice (Case 4) |
| Sustainability in Procurement | Permitted and encouraged as part of award criteria (Case 5) |
| Remedies & Review | Courts enforce compliance and allow challenging unlawful decisions |
Conclusion
Finland’s transposition of the EU Procurement Directive through the Act on Public Contracts has created a robust legal framework ensuring transparent, fair, and efficient public procurement aligned with EU principles. Finnish courts, particularly the Supreme Administrative Court, play a vital role in interpreting these rules, ensuring contracting authorities comply with both procedural and substantive requirements.
The case law illustrates that Finnish procurement law:
Enforces transparency and equal treatment rigorously.
Allows exclusion of non-compliant tenderers with sufficient justification.
Supports sustainable public procurement policies.
Applies EU procedural exceptions narrowly to prevent misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments