A propos the interaction between procurement remedies and the principle of State
After I published some comments on the EFTA Court’s Judgment in Fosen-Linjen Some thoughts AS v AtB AS (E-16/16! see here ) some three weeks ago! I have had some interesting exchanges and discussions with some academic colleagues and with policy-makers and practitioners. I am grateful to all of them for forcing me to think harder about some phone number library of the issues that Some thoughts arise from the Fosen-Linjen case and! in particular! for their repeated invitations to consider it by comparison to the Judgment of the UK Supreme.
Court in Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v EnergySolutions
EU Ltd (now ATK Energy Ltd) [2017] UKSC 34 (the ‘NDA’ judgment; for my views on an interim decision at the start of the litigation! see here ).
Indeed! comparing those cases is interesting! for the Fosen-Linjen and NDA judgments offer diametrically opposed views of the interaction between the use of damages as a procurement remedy and the principle of State liability for breach of EU law! in particular concerning the threshold for liability under the so-called second Francovich what is inbound marketing?: definition! benefits! strategies! and more condition— ie whether liability arises from a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of EU public procurement law! or from any (unqualified) breach of the rules.
I compare the approach to the procurement remedies
State liability interaction in both judgments! to then offer some brief reflections on (2) the implications of minimum harmonization of this subject-matter through the Remedies Directive (ie! Dir 89/665/EEC! as amended by Dir 2007/66/EC; see its consolidated version )! (3) the possibility to reform the Remedies Directive so as to achieve maximum harmonization! and (4) the betting email list potential implications of a damages-based procurement enforcement strategy in the context of the emergence of EU tort law. This post is meant! more than anything! as an invitation for further discussion.