Italy is trying to overcome a situation of widespread corruption, which is reflected in a legislation that generally gives more weight to transparency over the protection of business and technical secrets and, more generally, over competition concerns. The interplay between general and public procurement specific rules on both individual and open access however results in some apparently incongruous situations regarding legitimation, documents covered by access and litigation.
Steen Treumer and Mario Comba
The Directive was implemented before the deadline for implementation. The Danish implementation is one of the most interesting in the EU, as the legislator has consistently pushed the boundaries of EU public procurement law. The legislator reformulated the provisions of the Directive, adopted several questionable interpretations, considered numerous issues in further detail than the Directive and engaged in overimplementation. The majority of the questionable interpretations can be found in the preparatory works to the Procurement Act. Preparatory works are an important legal source in the Danish legal system, as it is an exception that Danish courts and complaints boards disregard preparatory works. Nevertheless, this has happened in the procurement context and will likely happen again due to the abovementioned characteristics of the Danish implementation. The regulation of competitive procedure with negotiation, contract changes and a requirement for prior publication of the method of evaluation is also of European interest.
Mario Comba and Sara Richetto
This chapter focuses on specific issues connected with the transposition of the Public Procurement Directives, adopted in 2014, into the Polish legal order. It shows that the Polish legislator generally decided to reproduce the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives more or less word for word. The chapter describes how three selected topic areas, illustrating three stages of the public contract award procedure and its implementation—namely, the choice of participants, the procedure itself and the performance of public contracts—were transposed in Poland. It also shows how Poland exercised discretion in the transposition regarding a few options left open by the EU legislator. Finally, it points out that if Directive 2014/24/EU did not specify the specific legal rules or regulatory options to be applied for attaining the broader objectives set out by the Directive, Poland generally disregarded these objectives.