Institutionalised Public-Private Partnership as a Mixed Contract under the Regime of the New Directive 2014/24/EU

TY - JOUR

T1 - Institutionalised Public-Private Partnership as a Mixed Contract under the Regime of the New Directive 2014/24/EU

AU - Andrecka, Marta

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The reformed EU public procurement regime established in Directive 2014/24/EU1 (further: the Directive) is likely to have the side effect of hindering the development of Institution- alised Public-Private Partnership (IPPP) contracts by introducing uncertainties regarding their classification for the purpose of their tendering and award. Even though a number of simplified rules and procedures were introduced, the issues regarding IPPP contracts’ clas- sification and uncertainties raised by recent case law, in particular the Loutraki case and the Oulun kapunki cases,2 stay present. Keeping in mind the Commission’s policy of promot- ing IPPP contracts across the EU and the potential of IPPP contracts to deliver better qual- ity, more innovative and punctual projects as well as their ability to secure better value for money, it is argued that such a state of affairs is inadequate. Therefore, the author claims that the Court of Justice and the Commission should recognize IPPP contracts as indivisible mixed contracts and establish requirements that need to be fulfilled for such an indivisibil- ity to be granted.

AB - The reformed EU public procurement regime established in Directive 2014/24/EU1 (further: the Directive) is likely to have the side effect of hindering the development of Institution- alised Public-Private Partnership (IPPP) contracts by introducing uncertainties regarding their classification for the purpose of their tendering and award. Even though a number of simplified rules and procedures were introduced, the issues regarding IPPP contracts’ clas- sification and uncertainties raised by recent case law, in particular the Loutraki case and the Oulun kapunki cases,2 stay present. Keeping in mind the Commission’s policy of promot- ing IPPP contracts across the EU and the potential of IPPP contracts to deliver better qual- ity, more innovative and punctual projects as well as their ability to secure better value for money, it is argued that such a state of affairs is inadequate. Therefore, the author claims that the Court of Justice and the Commission should recognize IPPP contracts as indivisible mixed contracts and establish requirements that need to be fulfilled for such an indivisibil- ity to be granted.

M3 - Journal article

SN - 2194-7376

SP - 174

EP - 186

JO - European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review

JF - European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review

IS - 3

ER -