Advertisement

Against the Grain? Member State Interests and EU Procurement Law

  • Albert Sanchez-GraellsEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

EU public procurement law has been increasingly criticised for the restrictions it places on Member States’ regulatory autonomy and for the imposition of neoliberal conceptions of State intervention in the economy that do not necessarily match the general preferences of Member States with a social market economy orientation. Following that view, it could be thought that there is a limited (and possibly narrowing) space for Member State interests in EU public procurement law—or, in other words, that pursuing national interests goes against the grain of the internal market foundations of the 2014 Public Procurement Package. The purpose of this chapter is to dispel this conception by making three points. First, that despite its competition-orientedness, the 2014 Public Procurement Package does not impose a “one-size-fits-all” straitjacket on domestic economic systems, but is rather compatible with diversity of economic models at national level. A series of complex trade-offs resulting from the last revision of the EU public procurement rules, where Member State interests played a multifaceted role, have consolidated a competition-based model with significant flexibility for non-market and non-competed mechanisms, as repeatedly tested before and confirmed by the Court of Justice. Second, that EU public procurement law, however, does appropriately prevent Member States from pursuing protectionist policies, even if they consider them to be in their national interest—quod non, because the proper working of the internal market is both in the collective interest of the EU and of the individual Member States. Third, that EU public procurement law, in particular in its current incarnation in the 2014 Public Procurement Package, emphasises the ability of Member States to pursue secondary policies (such as the promotion of innovation or sustainability) in a diverse manner, in accordance with their domestic interests and local particularism. On the whole thus EU public procurement law allows Member States significant space to pursue their national interests, always provided that they are also compatible with their own interest in the proper functioning of the internal market.

References

  1. Allerkamp, D. (2016). The EU legislative process. An introduction from a political science perspective. In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 193–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D., Kovacic, W. E., & Müller, A. C. (2016). Promoting competition and deterring corruption in public procurement markets: Synergies with trade liberalisation. In E15 Expert Group on Competition Policy and the Trade System. Think piece. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-Competition-Anderson-Kovacic-Muller-Final.pdf
  3. Arrowsmith, S. (2011). The EU procurement regime – objectives and overview. In S. Arrowsmith et al. (Eds.), EU public procurement law: An introduction. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pprg/documentsarchive/asialinkmaterials/eupublicprocurementlawintroduction.pdf
  4. Arrowsmith, S. (2012). The purpose of the EU procurement directives: Ends, means and the implications for national regulatory space for commercial and horizontal procurement policies. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrowsmith, S. (2015). Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU’s free movement rules. Current Legal Problems, 68, 307–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azoulai, L. (2013). The European Court of Justice and the duty to respect sensitive national interests. In M. Dawson, B. De Witte, & E. Muir (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 167–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnard, C. (2018). Fair’s fair: Public procurement, posting and pay. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 195–213). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bengoetxea, J. (2015). Text and telos in the European Court of Justice. Four recent takes on the legal reasoning of the ECJ. European Constitutional Law Review, 11, 184–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeger, N. (2018). Public procurement and business for value: Looking for alignment in law and practice. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 115–137). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Caranta, R. (2010). Sustainable public procurement in the EU. In R. Caranta & M. Trybus (Eds.), The law of green and social procurement in Europe (pp. 15–52). Copenhagen: DJØF.Google Scholar
  11. Caranta, R. (2015). The changes to the public contract directives and the story they tell about how EU law works. Common Market Law Review, 52, 391–459.Google Scholar
  12. Caranta, R. (2016). After Spezzino (C-113/13): A major loophole allowing direct awards in the social sector. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 14–21.Google Scholar
  13. Casalini, D. (2012). Beyond EU law: The new “public house”. In C. Tvarnø, G. S. Ølykke, & C. Risvig Hansen (Eds.), EU public procurement, modernisation growth and innovation (pp. 151–178). Copenhagen: DJØF.Google Scholar
  14. Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: Reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2016a). Commission Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [2016] OJ C262/1.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2016b). Buying green! A handbook on green public procurement (3rd ed.). Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/Buying-Green-Handbook-3rd-Edition.pdf
  17. Fanøe Petersen, C., & Ølykke, G. S. (2016). The provision on services of general economic interest in the 2014 directive. Pure reiteration of the obvious? In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 193–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Höpner, M., & Schäfer, A. (2012). Embeddedness and regional integration: Waiting for Polanyi in a Hayekian setting. International Organization, 66, 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jimena Quesada, L. (2017). Social rights in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The opening to the Turin process. Paper delivered to the Conference on Social rights in today’s Europe: The role of domestic and European Courts, Nicosia, 24 February 2017. Retrieved January 2, 2018, from https://rm.coe.int/168070391d
  20. Koutrakos, P., Nic Shuibhne, N., & Syrpis, P. (Eds.). (2016). Exceptions from EU free movement law. Derogation, justification and proportionality. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Kunzlik, P. (2013). Neoliberalism and the European public procurement regime. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 15, 283–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ølykke, G. S. (2016). The provision on abnormally low tenders: A safeguard for fair competition? In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 146–169). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ølykke, G. S. (2017). Commission notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU – Is the conduct of a public procurement procedure sufficient to eliminate the risk of granting State aid? Public Procurement Law Review, 26, 197–212.Google Scholar
  24. Ølykke, G. S., & Sanchez-Graells, A. (Eds.). (2016). Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Procurement of Innovation Platform. (2016). Guidance for Public Authorities on Public Procurement of Innovation. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.innovation-procurement.org/fileadmin/editor-content/Guides/PPI-Platform_Guide_new-final_download.pdf
  26. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2012). Public procurement and State aid: Reopening the debate? Public Procurement Law Review, 21, 205–212.Google Scholar
  27. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2013). The Commission’s modernisation agenda for procurement and SGEI. In E. Szyszczak & J. W. van de Gronden (Eds.), Financing services of general economic interest. Reform and modernization (pp. 161–181). The Hague: TMC Asser Press/Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2015). Public procurement and the EU competition rules (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016a). A deformed principle of competition? The subjective drafting of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24. In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 80–100). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016b). Truly competitive public procurement as a Europe 2020 lever: What role for the principle of competition in moderating horizontal policies? European Public Law Journal, 22, 377–394.Google Scholar
  31. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016c). Competition and State aid implications of the Spezzino judgment (C-113/13): The scope for inconsistency in aid assessments for voluntary organisations providing public services. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 31–38.Google Scholar
  32. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016d). Digging itself out of the hole? A critical assessment of the Commission’s attempt to revitalise State aid enforcement after the crisis. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 4, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2018a). Regulatory substitution between labour and public procurement law: The EU’s shifting approach to enforcing labour standards in public contracts. European Public Law Journal, 24, 229–254.Google Scholar
  34. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2018b). Competition and State aid implications of ‘public’ minimum wage clauses in EU public procurement after Regiopost. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 93–114). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Sauter, W. (2015). Public services in EU law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sauter, W., & Schepel, H. (2009). State and market in European Union law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schooner, S. L. (2002). Desiderata: Objectives for a system of government contract law. Public Procurement Law Review, 11, 103–110.Google Scholar
  38. Semple, A. (2016). The link to the subject-matter: A glass ceiling for sustainable public contracts? In B. Sjåfjell & A. Wiesbrock (Eds.), Sustainable public procurement under EU law. New perspectives on the state as stakeholder (pp. 50–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sjåfjell, B., & Wiesbrock, A. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainable public procurement under EU law. New perspectives on the state as stakeholder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Syrpis, P. (2007). EU intervention in domestic labour law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Szyszczak, E., & Sanchez-Graells, A. (2014). Modernising social services in the single market: Putting the market into the social. In J. M. Beneyto & J. Maillo (Eds.), Fostering growth: Reinforcing the internal market (pp. 61–88). Madrid: CEU Ediciones.Google Scholar
  42. Telles, P. (2016). The impact of Spezzino for third sector organisations. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trepte, P. (2004). Regulating procurement. Understanding the ends and means of public procurement regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trepte, P. (2012). The contracting authority as purchaser and regulator. Should the procurement rules regulate what we buy? In G. S. Ølykke, C. Risvig, & C. Tvarnø (Eds.), EU procurement, modernisation, growth and innovation (pp. 85–106). Copenhagen: DJØF.Google Scholar
  45. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2012). Competition policy and public procurement. Retrieved January 22, 2017, from http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ciclpd14_en.pdf
  46. Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Bristol, Law SchoolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations