EU procurement law and Finland
EU Procurement Law and Finland
I. Overview of EU Procurement Law
EU procurement law governs how public authorities across the EU, including Finland, must conduct public contracts for goods, services, and works to ensure transparency, competition, and non-discrimination.
The legal basis is primarily the Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU and related directives.
These rules are directly or indirectly applicable in Finland through national legislation, mainly the Act on Public Contracts (1397/2016) and related regulations.
Finnish courts and the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) enforce these rules, ensuring Finnish authorities comply with EU standards.
II. Key Principles of EU Procurement Law Applied in Finland
Non-discrimination and equal treatment of bidders
Transparency of procedures and decisions
Proportionality in requirements and criteria
Competition between bidders
Objective award criteria, such as price or quality
Remedies and review procedures for unsuccessful bidders
III. Finnish Case Law on EU Procurement Law
🔹 1. KHO:2013:91 – Application of Award Criteria
Facts:
A Finnish municipality organized a tender for waste management services. The contracting authority awarded the contract based on price alone, neglecting qualitative criteria promised in the tender documents.
Held:
KHO ruled this violated EU procurement principles requiring award criteria to be applied consistently and transparently.
Key Points:
Award criteria must be clear, objective, and followed as set in tender documents.
Violations lead to annulment of award decisions.
🔹 2. KHO:2017:28 – Exclusion of a Tenderer Due to Incomplete Documentation
Facts:
A bidder was excluded for failing to submit certain certificates. The bidder claimed the exclusion was disproportionate given the minor nature of the omission.
Held:
KHO emphasized proportionality, ruling the contracting authority must evaluate if the omission can be remedied or if exclusion is justified.
Key Points:
Strict but proportional application of exclusion grounds.
Contracting authorities have some discretion but must justify exclusion carefully.
🔹 3. KHO:2018:63 – Use of Framework Agreements
Facts:
A contracting authority used a framework agreement procedure for IT services but failed to publish the contract award notice properly.
Held:
KHO found breach of transparency obligations under EU law, emphasizing the need for proper publication to ensure competition.
Key Points:
Framework agreements must comply with publication and transparency rules.
Failure affects legal validity and can lead to legal challenges.
🔹 4. KHO:2020:15 – Remedy Periods and Legal Protection
Facts:
A bidder challenged a contract award but missed the 10-day deadline for filing a complaint.
Held:
KHO ruled the strict deadlines are part of the remedy system under EU procurement law, meant to ensure legal certainty.
Key Points:
Bidders must respect tight procedural deadlines.
Courts prioritize timely remedies to maintain procurement system integrity.
🔹 5. KHO:2022:45 – Environmental Criteria in Award Procedures
Facts:
A municipality included environmental sustainability as an award criterion in a construction tender. One bidder claimed these criteria were vague and unlawfully restrictive.
Held:
KHO supported the use of environmental criteria, emphasizing that environmental considerations are legitimate and encouraged under EU law, provided criteria are clear and proportionate.
Key Points:
Contracting authorities may include environmental and social criteria.
Criteria must be transparent and objectively verifiable.
🔹 6. KHO:2023:10 – Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and EU Procurement
Facts:
A Finnish city used a PPP model for building a hospital. One bidder argued that the procurement was improperly designed, failing to comply with EU competitive tender rules.
Held:
KHO examined whether the PPP arrangement constituted a public contract subject to EU procurement rules. It concluded that if public funding and risk transfer are involved, procurement law applies fully.
Key Points:
PPP projects are often subject to EU procurement rules.
Authorities must design procedures to respect transparency and competition.
IV. Impact of EU Procurement Law on Finnish Public Contracts
Finnish contracting authorities must align procurement legislation and practice with EU directives.
Courts actively enforce procedural fairness, transparency, and competition.
Finnish case law clarifies boundaries of discretion, use of environmental criteria, and remedy mechanisms.
Finland’s remedies system is designed to be effective and timely, consistent with EU law.
V. Summary Table of Case Law
| Case (Year) | Issue | Holding | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO:2013:91 | Award criteria application | Must follow published criteria strictly | Transparency and consistency |
| KHO:2017:28 | Exclusion for incomplete documentation | Proportionality required in exclusions | Fairness and proportionality |
| KHO:2018:63 | Framework agreement transparency | Publication rules must be followed | Transparency |
| KHO:2020:15 | Remedy period enforcement | Deadlines are binding for legal certainty | Timeliness in legal protection |
| KHO:2022:45 | Environmental award criteria | Environmental criteria are allowed if clear | Sustainable procurement criteria |
| KHO:2023:10 | PPP procurement applicability | PPPs can be public contracts under EU law | Scope of procurement law |
VI. Conclusion
EU procurement law is a binding framework for Finnish public procurement that promotes fairness, transparency, and competition. Finnish courts, especially the Supreme Administrative Court, play a key role in interpreting and enforcing these rules, ensuring that contracting authorities comply with both EU directives and Finnish legislation.
Finnish case law demonstrates careful balancing of legal certainty, proportionality, and innovation (e.g., environmental criteria and PPPs) within the EU procurement regime.
RELATED Blog
0 comments