WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/32
12  January 2000
(00-0109)
Committee on Government Procurement Original:  English/
French
REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
European Community
The present document reproduces the questions put to the delegation of the European
Community and the responses given and comments made during the review of national implementing
legislation at the Committee's meetings of 7 October 1998 and 5 October 1999.1  The European
Community's notification of its national implementin g legislation in accordance with the Committee's
Decision in GPA/1/Add.1 has been circulated in document GPA/20, dated 28 January 1998.
_______________
REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS FROM KOREA AND THE UNITED STATES
I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION BY THE
MEMBER STATES
Question from Korea
1. Korea thinks that at the EC level, legislati on on public procurement is generally in conformity
with the rules of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.
However, Korea has concerns about the implementation of that legislation by EC member
States.  The important aspect is not EC legislation per se but rather its full compliance by member
States.  According to "Single Market Scoreboard" , which is issued by the EC Commission every six
months to assess the degree of implementation of Directives for the single market, government
procurement was reported to be the most poorly impl emented area (only 55 per cent of the Directives
are implemented by member States).  Furthermore,  as far as Korea knows, infringement procedures
were initiated this year by the EC Commission against Greece, Spain and Italy due to their
non-implementation of EC Directives.
Regarding these concerns, Korea would appreciate knowing what actions the EC is, and will
be taking, to better comply with the GPA.
Through the decision of the Council of the European Communities of December 1994,
ratifying the entire Uruguay Round package, the GPA has become a part of the domestic law of the
European Community, in its entirety, from 1 January 1996, and is fully in force within the
Community from that date.  The EC Directives, which were the internal legislation of the European
Community at the time of entry into force of the GP A was, to a large extent,  in line with the GPA.
The limited number of areas where this legislation was not entirely in line with the GPA related to theissues of threshold, the statistical reporting requirements and a very limited number of other issues.
                                                     
1 The minutes of these meetings have been circulated in documents GPA/M/10 and 12.GPA/32
Page 2
These areas were subsequently brought in line with the requirements in the GPA through two
Directives which were adopted on 10 October 1996.
The Community acts in the procurement area through Directives which the relationship
between deal with the suppliers and purchasers within the Community, giving suppliers certain rights
and creating obligations for purchasers.  The EC Directives do not deal directly with the relationshipbetween suppliers from the GPA Parties (other than the EU member States ) and purchasers within
EU.  With regard to the issue of whether domestic legislation of EC member States are in conformity
with the requirements of the GPA on national trea tment, relationship between the suppliers in GPA
Parties members and purchasers within the Commun ity is fully governed by the GPA which in its
entirety has been made part of the EU Law since December 1994.  In the context of GPA rules, it is
important to ensure that non-European Community suppliers are governed by exactly the same
procurement regime as suppliers from the Community.  Any problems with the  implementation of theDirectives relates to relationship between the Community suppliers and purchasers and does not mean
that any rights arising from the GPA for suppliers  in the GPA countries, other than EU, has been
affected in any way.  The Commission and the member States consider it important that the Directives
should be fully and correctly implemented within the deadlines laid down.  Any problems with the
implementation of the EC Directives does not affect the obligations of the member States under theGPA.
The reference to 55 per cent of the Directives in the Korean question relates to the cases in
which the member States have not adopted all measures necessary to implement those Directives as
far as they relate to purchases by EC contracting entities of products, services and works supplied by
suppliers  from the Community and is, therefore, outside the GPA context.
The European Commission, as the institution charged with the enforcement of the rules
within the EC is fully committed to the implementation of the Single Market legislation.  An Action
Plan for the Single Market was approved by the Commission in 1997.  One of its targets is to ensure
that rules are effectively applied.  Under this plan, each member State will be called upon to submit its
detailed timetable and to demonstrate political commitment to eliminate urgently all delays intransposition.  The Single Market Scoreboard, i ssued by the Commission every six months, is used to
keep track of the progress in the implementation of the Directives for Single Market.  Meanwhile, the
Commission will continue to pursue infringement procedures vigorously and swiftly against member
States which fail in these obligations, using sanctions against them where necessary.
In addition, as far as public procurement is specifically concerned, the Commission has
approved this year a Communication on its future policy in this field in which a specific subchapter on
improving the implementation of public procurement policy was included.  The text of theCommunication is available in the SIMAP website ( http://simap.eu.int) .
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EC UTILITIES DIRECTIVE 93/38
Question from the United States
2. Section I.1(i), Section I.1(iii) and Section IV.2(6) of the EC Notification of National
Implementing Legislation make reference to the EC Utilities Directive 93/38.  Section IV.2(6) refers
specifically to Article 36 of the Utilities Directive.  Is Article 36 of the Utilities Directive currently
being implemented and enforced by Greece, Portugal and Spain?
Directive 93/38 is applicable in its entirety in Spain as from 1 January 1997 and
Directive 93/38 is applicable in its entirety in Greece and Portugal as from 1 January 1998(Cfr. Article 45 §2 of Directive 93/38).GPA/32
Page 3
The preference granted to EC member States under Article 36 of the Utilities Directive
continues to apply to the purchases not covered by the GPA.
III. PRIOR INFORMATION NOTICE
Question from the United States
3. The EC response in Section IV.2(11) of GPA/ 20 on "Time Limits for Tendering and Delivery"
indicates that deadlines for receipt of tenders can be reduced in instances where a "prior information
notice" has been published.  Please describe what in formation is required to be included in a prior
information notice, and whether a prior information notice is equivalent to a "pre-information notice"
as described in Section IV.2(8).
The information to be included in the "prior information notices" is specified in Annexes IV
of Directive 93/36, IV of Directive 93/37, III of  Directive 92/50 and XIV of Directive 93/38.
The information required is:
- Name, address, etc. of the contracting authority, and, if different, of the service from
which additional information may be obtained.
- Nature and quantity or value of the procurement.  This information depends on
whether the procurement concerns goods, services or works.
- Estimated date for initiating the award procedures.
- Other information (including for instance terms of financing of the works in the case
of construction services).
- Date of dispatch of the notice.
- Date of receipt of the notices by the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
- Indication whether the procurement is covered by the GPA.
"Prior Information Notices" (also known as PINs) are also referred to as "indicative notices"
in the directives.  In document GPA/20, the expression "pre-information notice" used in
Section IV.2.(8), though not technically accurate, is used as a synonym of "Prior Information Notice".
IV. FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTS
Question from the United States
4. Section IV.2(10) states that Annex 3 entities are permitted to choose between open and
restricted procedures without a call for competition, "for contracts to be awarded on the basis of a
framework agreement ...".  Please provide detail s on the legal definition of a "framework agreement"
as well as information regarding when such agr eements are permitted to be used and how they
operate.
Framework agreements in the European Community legislation are specifically dealt with
only in the Utilities Directive, that is only for Appendix 3 entities.  It is not mentioned at all in the
Directive relating to public entities that is Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 entities.GPA/32
Page 4
According to Directive 93/38, the Utilities Di rective, "framework agreement" shall mean an
agreement between one of the contracting entities and one or more suppliers, contractors or service
providers the purpose of which is to establish the terms, in particular with regard to the prices and,
where appropriate, the quantity envisaged, governing the contracts to be awarded during a given
period.
Annex 3 entities may regard a framework agreement as a contract and award it in accordance
with Directive 93/38:  i.e. using the open, restrict ed or negotiated (with publication) procedure, as
appropriate.  When contracting entities have awarded a framework agreement in accordance with
Directive 93/38, a call for competition is not compulsory when awarding contracts based on that
agreement.
According to Article 5 of Directive 93/38, contracting entities may not misuse framework
agreements in order to hinder, limit or distort competition.
V. ENFORCEMENT
Question from the United States
5. Please provide details on infringement actions currently undertaken by the European
Commission against member States for violations  of EC procurement laws outlined in GPA/20.
Please also explain the impact of EC member Stat e infringement of Community law in the field of
procurement or national rules impl ementing that law on the EC’s international obligations under the
WTO GPA.
Details of the infringement procedures und ertaken by the European Commission against
member States are not considered to be public, unless cases are brought before the European Court ofJustice.  However, the spokesman's service of the European Commission regularly issues press
releases concerning public procurement infringements at earlier stages of the procedure.  These press
releases are publicly available and can be accessed through the RAPID database via the EUROPA
server (http://europa.eu.int).
As for the impact of member State infringement of Community Law, it must be recalled that
Article 189 of the EC Treaty provides that the form of Community legislation known as the
"directive" is binding as to the result to be achi eved but leaves the national authorities the choice of
form and methods.  Member States are therefore under an obligation to take all appropriate measures
to make sure that the provisions of the directive are complied with.  These measures have to be taken
within the deadlines laid down.
It can happen that a member State fails to take all necessary measures to implement the
directive by the date laid down, and it might be thought that the directive would then be inapplicable.But the same Article 189 provides the basis for what is known as "direct effect".  The Court of Justice
has interpreted Article 189 to mean that "when the conditions under which the Court has held that
individuals may rely on the provisions of a directive before the national courts are met, all organs of
the administration, including decentralized authorities such as municipalities, are obliged to apply
those provisions" (ECJ, case Costanzo).
The impact of this judgment is not confined to the application of a provision in a particular
directive;  it also establishes the principle that national measures may not prevent the application of a
provision in a particular directive if it can be applied directly.GPA/32
Page 5
The Commission has powers to ensure the full compliance with the directives includes the
power to bring a member State before the Court of Justice.  The same power exists when infringement
of the obligations of the GPA is committed by any of the contracting entities covered under the GPA
in any of the member States.  An infringement of the obligations under the Directives would relate to
the relationship between Community suppliers and entities and not to the relationship between thesuppliers from the GPA countries and Community entitie s. As regards the Remedies Directive, if and
when bid challenge rights are not granted in EU legislation because the Remedies Directive may not
have been entirely implemented by a member State, there is a safety net in the community referred to
as the "Francovitch Case Law" which provides suppliers from the GPA Parties other than those from
the EC member States, with the possibility of taking  a matter up in the European Court of Justice and
having rapid and effective remedies available as required by the GPA would be able to use the safety
net provided by the Frankovitch Case Law.  The "Francovitch" case the Court accepted the principlethat a member State must make good damage suffered by individuals as a result of an infringement of
Community law, e.g. through its failure to transpose a directive into national law or to transpose it
properly.  This has been further developed in the "Brasserie du Pêcheur" case.  Thus, this safety net
allows any supplier from any GPA country with the possibility to go to court and to have rapid and
effective remedies available to it, as required in the GPA Agreement, therefore, a non-implementationof the Remedies Directive by a member State does not effect the right of GPA suppliers as they will
be able to use the safety net provided by the "Francovitch Case Law".
Question from the United States
6. Section IV.3 of GPA/20 states  that member States are authorized to choose between two
"options" relating to the power of review bodies.  Please describe what rapid interim measures, as
required by GPA Article XX:7(a), are provided for in the second option, "indirect pressure".
As stated in Section IV.3 of GPA/20 such "two options" possibility only concerns the legal
regime applicable to Annex 3 entities (contracting entities subject to Directive 93/38).  At the time
when Directive 92/13 (the so-called Remedies Utilities Directive) was enacted, it was felt necessary totake account of the specific nature of certain legal orders in the EC by authorizing the member States
to choose between the introduction of different powers for the review bodies which have equivalent
effects.  It is to be noted that claims for damages are always possible.
One of the options includes the power to intervene directly in the contracting entities'
procurement procedures such as by suspending them or by setting aside decisions or discriminatory
clauses in documents or publications.  Thus, this option is based on traditional litigation.
However, in some legal orders, review bodies cannot, because of the legal nature of the some
contracting entities, annul or suspend award decisions made by this kind of entities.  This is why there
is a second option, referred to in this question, which provide for the power to exert effective indirect
pressure on the contracting entities in order to ma ke them correct any infringements or prevent them
from committing infringements, and to prevent injury from occurring.  The kind of measures adopted
are generally making orders for the payment of a particular sum, unless the infringement is correctedor prevented.  This sum must be set at a level high enough to dissuade the contracting entity from
committing or persisting in an infr ingements.  These measures are to be taken at the earliest
opportunity, if possible by way of interlocutory procedures and if necessary by a final procedure on
the substance.
The distinction between the two options concer ns the powers exerted by the review bodies
rather than the actual procedure used.  In both cases, there is a provision ensuring that measures are
taken at the earliest opportunity.GPA/32
Page 6
One option is a judicial and the other is administrative procedure.  In choosing either option
the member State has to satisfy the over all conditions in terms of rapidity and having adequate
remedies, in line with the GPA procedures.
The requirements in Article XX of GPA are more broadly worded than that in the Remedies
Directive.  It  was decided to be more specific than the terms laid down in Article XX.  Under both
options there are sufficient guarantees that the remedies are offered rapidly and that they cover all the
requirements of Article XX of GPA.
Question from the United States
7. Section IV.3(13)(ii) describes EC review pro cedures.  Please provide information concerning
the length of time it ordinarily takes for the completion of Commission infringement determinations,decisions to be rendered by the European Court of Justice, and for member State compliance with
these decisions and determinations.
The length of time will depend on the of the complexity and the nature of the case in question.
Formal procedure start by the Commission sending out a "letter of formal notice" to the member State
in question.  In general, member States have two months to present their considerations unless theurgency requires faster responses.  Then the Commission can send a "reasoned opinion" in which it
states why the member State in question has infringed Community Law and requests that appropriate
measures are taken to correct the situation.  If the member State does not comply with this "reasoned
opinion" within the period stated (usually two m onths), the Commission may submit the case to the
European Court of Justice.  However, if the case  justifies a more rapid intervention, time-limits are
shortened.
The procedure before the European Court of Justice may last between one year and a half and
two years, on average.  But again, procedures can be quicker if there is a justified reason.
Commission may (and normally does) ask for interim measures when this is needed.
Almost all cases are settled before reaching the Court of Justice, and most of them are settled
even before the "reasoned opinion" is delivered, so  length is variable and can be substantially more
reduced than the figures above may suggest.
The Commission has the powers to overview the way in which the member States comply
with their obligations under the EC laws.  If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there is a
violation either, on its own initiative or on the basis of a formal, informal or anonymous complaint.
This may involve the violation of the Community  laws implementing Community's international
obligations per se.  In that event, the Commission can start a procedure which in the final instance
may lead to a Court of Justice decision.  The actual cases which go for a decision of the Court
decision are very few.  In fact only one or two cases are decided by the Court of Justice, per year.  In
the majority of cases the complaints are resolved before reaching that stage.GPA/32
Page 7
V. QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO MEMBER STATES
A. AUSTRIA
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.A of GPA/20)
8. The response to question 14(i) of the Checklist in GPA/20 notes that after potential disputes
become known, complaints must be filed with the Control Commission expeditiously.  Would a
complaint filed within ten days after a potential dispute became known generally be considered to
have been filed expeditiously?
The Austrian Bundesvergabegesetz (Federal Law on Public Procurement) determines no
official time-limits for filing complaints.  However,  a complaint filed within ten days after a potential
dispute became known would be considered to have been filed expeditiously.
B. GERMANY
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.D of GPA/20)
9. Please provide additional information regar ding Germany’s amended legal framework for
public procurement.  Specifically, please provid e information outlining the differences between the
existing legal framework and the amended framework,  and detailing the provisions of the amended
framework which ensure fair and open competition to bidders.
The rules on public procurement have been incorporated into the Law against Restraint of
Competition (GWB) by insertion of a new 4th part of the Law, see BdGBl. 1998 Teil I, 2568, Nr. 59
dated 2 September 1988.  The basic principles of public procurement (competition, transparency and
non-discrimination) have been summarised in § 97 GWB.  Admissible requirements not related to thepublic procurement – like environmentally advantageous producing methods, special social goals,
affirmative action - have been restricted; they can be imposed on the bidders only where there is a
legal basis for doing so.  § 97 GWB spells out that the bidder is entitled to rely on the contracting
entity observing the public procurement procedure.
An effective judicial review has been introduced and laid down in a comprehensive way,
§§ 102 – 124 GWB.  A newly created "Vergabekammer" (first instance for public procurement
reviews) reviews public procurement procedures up on request.  Upon appeal the Court of Appeal can
review decisions of the first instance.  The launching of a review procedure automatically triggers an
interruption of the awarding procedure according to the new rules.  The action for damages brought
by either a bidder or a contracting entity has been laid down in the law, §§ 125 – 126 GWB.
C. S
PAIN
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.E of GPA/20)
10. Please provide clarification to the response under Section 13, particularly with regard to the
reference to "[t]he notification of the agreements".
The "Notification of the agreements" should be understood as the notification of the results of
the tender.  Under Spanish administrative law, public authorities have the obligation not only to notifybidders of the result of each tender but also to inform them of the legal remedies and procedures at
their disposal in case they wish to challenge the result of the tender.GPA/32
Page 8
D. GREECE
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.EL of GPA/20)
11. Does the response to question 14(vi) indicate that, under the new law, a complainant will
have five days to launch a complaint after having learned of a contested act by an awardingauthority?
We should distinguish between:  (a) proceedings for interim relief;  and (b) the main action.
The time-limits imposed by the new legislation rela te mainly to interim relief proceedings.  Thus, a
plaintiff is obliged to submit an "administrative redress petition" with the awarding authority within
five days after having learned of the contested act.  If the petition is rejected, the plaintiff will be
entitled to seek interim relief by an order of th e competent court.  The submission should be made
within ten days from the rejection of the petition.  The law provides however that in cases an interim
relief order is granted, the plaintiff will have to initiate proceedings on the main action within 30 days
from the order;  failure to do so will automa tically make the interim relief order void.
On the other hand, as regards the main action (e.g., action for the annulment of an
administrative act, etc.) the normal time-limits continue to apply.  For example, the time-limit for the
introduction of an action for the annulment of a administrative act, will generally be of 60 days.
E. F
RANCE
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.F of GPA/20)
12. Do the documents referred to in question 14 respond to questions 14(i) through 14(vii);  if so,
are the documents available for GPA Party review?
The documents referred to are reproduced in the attachment2 to this paper.
F. IRELAND
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.IRL of GPA/20)
13. Are there any time-limits to launching complaints, as mentioned in question 14(i)?
The EU Remedies directives are transposed directly into Irish Law by Statutory Instruments.
There is no time-limit to launching complaints in the Directives;  similarly there is no time-limit in
Irish law.
                                                     
2 French onlyGPA/32
Page 9
G. PORTUGAL
Question from the United States (Section IV.3.P of GPA/20)
14. As mentioned in the response to question 14(i), what is the difference between a hierarchical
remedy with respect to the discussion of a claim, to which a five-day time-limit would apply, and ahierarchical remedy challenging the legality of administrative acts, to which a 30-day time-limit is
applied?
The question refers to two different situations:  an administrative claim ("reclamação") and a
judicial claim ("recurso contencioso").
In the first case, suppliers have a five-day delay to ask the contracting entity to revoke its
award decision.
If the decision is not revoked, the plaintiff has then a 30-day delay to introduce a law suit
before the competent court ("Tribunal Administrativo").GPA/32
Page 10
ATTACHMENT
National Legislation of France
1. Code des Tribunaux Administratifs et Cours Administratives D'Appel
Article L.22
Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut être saisi en cas de manquement
aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des
marchés publics et des conventions de délégation de service public.
Les personnes habilitées à agir sont celles qui ont un intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui sont
susceptibles d'être lésées par ce manquement, ainsi que le représentant de l'Etat dans le département
dans le cas où le contrat est conclu ou doit être conclu par une collectivité territoriale ou un
établissement public local.
Le président du tribunal admnistratif peut être saisi avant la conclusion du contrat.  Il peut
ordonner à l'auteur du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations et suspendre la passation du
contrat ou l'éxécution de toute décision qui s'y rapporte.  Il peut également annuler ces décisions et
supprimer les clauses ou prescriptions destinées à figurer dans le contrat et qui méconnaissaient
lesdites obligations.  Sauf si la demande porte sur des marchés ou contrats passés par l'Etat, elle peutégalement être présentée par celui-ci lorsque la Commission des Communautés européennes lui a
notifié les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations de
publicité et de mise en concurrence d'origine communautaire ou résultant de l'accord sur l'Espace
économique européen a été commise.
Le président du tribunal administratif ou son délégué statue en premier et dernier ressort en la
forme des référés.
Article L.23
Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut être saisi en cas de manquement
aux obligations de publicité ou de mise en concurrence auxquelles sont soumis les contrats visés àl'article 7-2 de la loi nº 92-1282 du 11 décembre 1992 relative aux procédures de passation de certains
contrats dans les secteurs de l'eau, de l'énergie, des transports et des télécommunications.  Le juge ne
peut statuer, avant la conclusion du contrat, que dans les conditions définies ci-après.
Les personnes habilitées à agir sont celles qui ont un intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui sont
susceptibles d'être lésées par ce manquement.
Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut ordonner à l'auteur du
manquement de se conformer à ses obligations.  Il détermine les délais dans lesquels l'auteur du
manquement doit s'éxécuter.  Il peut aussi prononcer une astreinte provisoire courant à l'expiration desdélais impartis.  Il peut toutefois prendre en considération les conséquences probables de cette
dernière mesure pour tous les intérêts susceptibles d'être atteints, notamment l'intérêt public, et
décider de ne pas l'accorder lorsque ses conséquences négatives pourraient dépasser ses avantages.
Le montant de l'astreinte provisoire est liquidé en tenant compte du comportement de celui à
qui l'injonction a été adressée et des difficultés qu'il a rencontrées pour l'éxécuter.
Sauf si la demande porte sur des marchés ou contrats passés par l'Etat, elle peut également
être présentée par celui-ci lorsque la Commission des communautés européennes lui a notifié lesGPA/32
Page 11
raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées ci-
dessus a été commise.
Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, statue en premier et dernier ressort en
la forme des référés.
Si, à la liquidation de l'astreinte provisoire, le manquement constaté n'a pas été corrigé le juge
peut prononcer une astreinte définitive.  Dans ce cas, il statue en la forme des référés, appel pouvant
être fait comme en matière de référé.
L'astreinte, qu'elle soit provisoire ou définitive, est indépendante des dommages-intérêts.
L'astreinte provisoire ou définitive est supprimée en tout ou partie s'il est établi que l'inéxécution ou leretard dans l'éxécution de l'injonction du juge provient, en tout ou partie, d'une cause étrangère.
Article R.241-21
Toute personne habilitée à introduire un recours dans les conditions prévues par l'article L.22
doit, si elle entend engager une telle action, demander préalablement à la personne morale tenue aux
obligaitons de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des contrats et
marchés mentionnés audit article de s'y conformer.
En cas de refus ou d'absence de réponse dans un délai de dix jours, l'auteur de la demande
peut saisir le président du tribunal administratif ou son délégué, qui statue dans un délai de vingt
jours.
Article R.241-22
L'article R.241-21 est applicable au représenta nt de l'Etat mentionné à l'article R.241-23.
Article R.241-23
Dans le cas prévu au quatrième alinéa de l'article L.22, l'Etat est représenté par le ministre de
tutelle lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par un établissement public de l'Etat ayant un caractère autre
qu'industriel et commercial ou par le préfet lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par une collectivitéterritoriale ou un établissement public local ayant un caractère autre qu'industriel et commercial.
Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par une personne morale de droit privé pour le compte de
l'Etat, d'une collectivité territoriale ou un établissement public local ayant un caractère autre
qu'industriel et commercial et relevant de l'Etat ou d'une collectivité territoriale, l'Etat est représenté,selon le cas, par le ministre ou le préfet intéressé.
Article R.241.24
La décision du président du tribunal administratif ou de son délégué, qui est exécutoire par
provision, est susceptible de recours en cassation de vant le Conseil d'Etat, dans la quinzaine de sa
notification.GPA/32
Page 12
1. LOI n° 91-3 du 3 Janvier 1991 Modifée (relative à la transparence et la régularité des
procédures de marchés et soumettant la passation de certains contrats à des règles de
publicité et de mise en concurrence)
Article 11-1
En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est
soumise la passation des contrats définis aux articles 9, 9-1, 10 aux I, II, III, et IV de l'article 10-1 et à
l'article 11 et relevant du droit privé, toute personne ayant intérêt à conclure le contrat et susceptible
d'être lésée par ce manquement peut demander au juge de prendre, avant la conclusion du contrat, des
mesures provisoires tendant à ce qu'il soit ordonné à la personne morale responsable du manquement
de se conformer à ses obligations et, le cas échéant, à ce que soit suspendue la procédure de passation
du contrat ou l'exécution de toute décision qui s'y rapporte.  Elle peut également demander que soientannulées de telles décisions et que soient supprimées les clauses ou prescriptions destinées à figurer
dans le contrat et qui méconnaissent lesdites obligations.
La demande peut également être présentée par le ministère public lorsque la Commission des
Communautés européennes a notifié à l'Etat les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violationclaire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées au premier alinéa a été commise.
La demande est portée devant le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou
son délégué, qui statue en premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés.
2. LOI n° 92-1282 du 11 Décembre 1992 (modifiée par la loi nº 93-1 416 du 29 décembre 1993
et par la loi nº 97-50 du 22 janvier 1997)
Article 7-1
En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est
soumise la passation des contrats définis à l'article 1er et relevant du droit privé, le juge ne peut
statuer, avant la conclusion du contrat, que dans les conditions définies ci-après.
Sur demande de toute personne ayant intérêt à conclure le contrat et susceptible d'être lésée
par un manquement, le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou son délégué peut
ordonner à l'auteur du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations.  Il détermine les délais dans
lesquels l'auteur du manquement doit s'exécuter.  Il peut aussi prononcer une astreinte provisoirecourant à compter de l'expiration des délais impartis.  Il peut toutefois prendre en considération les
conséquences probables de cette dernière mesure pour tous les intérêts susceptibles d'être atteints,
notamment l'intérêt public, et décider de ne pas l'accorder lorsque ses conséquences négatives
pourraient dépasser ses avantages.
La demande peut également être présentée par le ministère public lorsque la Commission des
communautés européennes a notifié à l'Etat les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation
claire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées au premier alinéa a été commise.
Le montant de l'astreinte provisoire est liquidé en tenant compte du comportement de celui à
qui l'injonction a été adressée et des difficultés qu'il a rencontrées pour l'exécuter.
Le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou son délégué statue en
premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés.
Si, à la liquidation de l'astreinte provisoire, le manquement constaté n'a pas été corrigé, le juge
peut prononcer une astreinte définitive.  Dans ce cas, il statue en la forme des référés, appel pouvant
être fait comme en matière de référé.GPA/32
Page 13
L'astreinte, qu'elle soit provisoire ou définitive, est indépendante des dommages-intérêts.
L'astreinte provisoire ou définitive est supprimée en tout ou partie s'il est établi que l'inexécution ou le
retard dans l'exécution de l'injonction du juge provient, en tout ou partie, d'une cause étrangère.
Article 7-2
En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est
soumise la passation des contrats définis à l'article 1er et relevant du droit public, toute personne qui a
intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui est susceptible d'être lésée par ce manquement peut demander au
juge de prendre, avant la conclusion du contrat, les mesures prévues à l'article L.23 du code des
tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel.
__________