Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Study: The Netherlands

  • Chapter
Damages in EU Public Procurement Law

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 6))

  • 529 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents public procurement damages claims in the Netherlands, with a particular emphasis on jurisprudential developments. It covers the causes of action, in particular the constitutive criteria for pre-contractual liability and tort law, as well as the justiciability of claims. It further examines the quantification aspects of damages claims, notably the recoverable losses (bid costs, lost profits and the compensation for lost chances) and judges’ quantification methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The previous European substantive public procurement Directives 2004/18 and 2004/17 had been implemented in the Netherlands through the Raamwet EEG-voorschriften aanbestedingen (the ‘framework law’) and two ministerial decrees based on this framework law: Besluit aanbestedingsregels voor overheidsopdrachten (decree tendering rules for public procurement, ‘BAO’) and Besluit aanbestedingen speciale sectoren (decree tendering in special sectors, ‘BASS’).

  2. 2.

    The first European substantive Directive 71/305 for works was implemented in the Netherlands by means of the Uniforme Aanbestedingsreglement (Uniform public procurement regulation, ‘UAR’) 1971. The intensification of regulation of public procurement at the European level was subsequently transposed by the ‘UAR 1986’, the ‘UAR-EG 1991’, and then the ‘UAR 2001’. The latter was then replaced by the Aanbestedingsreglement Werken 2004 (Public procurement regulation for works, ‘ARW’ 2004) which was in turn replaced by the ‘ARW 2005’, and now ‘ARW 2012’. For the utilities sector, this was the Aanbestedingsreglement Nutssectoren 2006 (Public procurement regulation for utilities sectors, ‘ARN 2006’), now ‘ARN 2013’.

  3. 3.

    The Dutch substantive public procurement rules are not discussed in this work. Regarding the Netherlands, see EH Pijnacker Hordijk, WH Van Boom & JF Van Nouhuys, Aanbestedingsrecht. Handboek van het Europese en het Nederlandse Aanbestedingsrecht (Den Haag, Sdu Uitgevers, 2009).

  4. 4.

    See the explanatory memorandum to the Dutch implementing proposal of Directive 2007/66, Tweede Kamer 2008–2009, 32 027, nr 3, p 3.

  5. 5.

    Uniforme administratieve voorwaarden voor de uitvoering van werken en van technische installatiewerken 2012 (Uniform administrative conditions for the execution of works and technical installation works, ‘UAV 2012’).

  6. 6.

    In 2013, the RvA arbitration tribunal handled around 1000 construction cases. See Raad van Arbitrage van de Bouw, ‘Raad van Arbitrage voor de Bouw (RvA)’, www.raadvanarbitrage.nl. These are not all cases in which the public procurement rules are applied, as many are contractual claims.

  7. 7.

    This means that parties cannot agree not to apply the EU procurement rules. Such a specific rule for EU procurement disputes has been in force since 1 September 1995. It is now contained in Art 12(2) of the RvA Arbitragereglement from 1 January 2015.

  8. 8.

    Whereas the RvA principally adjudicated based on the principle ‘good men in all fairness’, the statutes of the RvA were changed in 1995 in relation to the requirements of European public procurement claims, so as to provide for adjudication ‘according to the law’. See Art 18 (2) of the RvA statutes, ibid. The date of entry into force of that alteration was 1 September 1995. Only since 2015 does the RvA generally adjudicate according to the rules of law unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

  9. 9.

    MA Van Wijngaarden and MAB Chao-Duivis, Hoofdstukken Bouwrecht: Aanbestedingsrecht (Den Haag, Kluwer, 2008).

  10. 10.

    Algemene wet bestuursrecht (‘Awb’, General administrative law), Art 8:3.

  11. 11.

    It is usually assumed by interim judges that interim procedures are not suitable for determining damages claims.

  12. 12.

    This is the vision defended by the legislator, which, in the written preparations for the Wira, stated several times that the damages provisions are to be implemented by means of the tort law provision contained in 6:162 BW. See for example in the conversion table between Directive and the Wira implementation act attached to the proposal TK 2008–2009, 32027, nr 3, p 24.

  13. 13.

    WJ Slagter, ‘Aanbestedingsaansprakelijkheid: grondslagen en knelpunten’, in WH van Boom et al (eds), Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid (Schoordijk Instituut Centrum voor aansprakelijkheid, 2001), p 14. See, also JM Hebly & FG Wilman, ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, in DR Fairgrieve & F Lichère (eds), Public Procurement Law. Damages as an Effective Remedy (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011), p 77.

  14. 14.

    Hoge Raad, 15 November 1957, NJ 1958, 67 (Baris/Riezenkamp).

  15. 15.

    Hoge Raad, 18 June 1982, NJ 1983, 723.

  16. 16.

    There is considerable discord among legal academics concerning the question whether the precontractual stage is made up of three phases, or less, or as the author suggests one ought rather to speak of different negotiation situations. See MR Ruygvoorn, ‘Bestaat de “tweede fase” uit Plas/Valburg nog?’ (2011) 2 Contracteren, 39, p 40.

  17. 17.

    Hoge Raad, 12 August 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT7337 (CBB/JBO). The case is less clear on the application of the test to the facts of the negotiations as the Hoge Raad only struck down the (lack of) reasoning of the lower court.

  18. 18.

    Rechtbank Zutphen, 29 December 2010, ECLI:NL:RBZUT:2010:BO9733.

  19. 19.

    This note is included in the ARW 2012 explanations, p 242 with a reference to Rechtbank’ s-Hertogenbosch, 5 November 2008, ECLI:NL:RBSHE:2008:BW2949 (Van der Horst/De Dommel).

  20. 20.

    ibid.

  21. 21.

    Literally, the court said that the attitude of the contracting authority would have to be one along the lines of: ‘We zien het eigenlijk niet zitten, maar laten we toch maar een aanbesteding houden, je weet nooit hoe een koe een haas vangt’. See ibid, para 4.4.2.

  22. 22.

    Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 3 November 2009, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2009:BK7579.

  23. 23.

    Hoge Raad, 12 August 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT7337, (CBB/JBO).

  24. 24.

    Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 3 November 2009, above n 22.

  25. 25.

    J Spier, T Hartlief, GE Van Maanen & RD Vriesendorp, Verbintenissen uit de wet en Schadevergoeding (Deventer, Kluwer, 2006) write about the ‘principle of full compensation’, ‘a principle with many exceptions… not absolute’.

  26. 26.

    This is attributability in the narrow sense. The fault criterion is here used to determine whether it is attributable to a specific person. The case law is sometimes ambiguous in using the ‘fault’ criterion in cases which qualify the tortuous act, rather than using attributability as such. See Spier et al, ibid.

  27. 27.

    ibid.

  28. 28.

    See Art 6:162, para 3 of BW.

  29. 29.

    Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 3 November 2009, above n 22.

  30. 30.

    MH Wissink & WH Van Boom, ‘The Netherlands. Damages under Dutch Law’, in U Magnus (ed), Unification of Tort Law: Damages (The Hague, Kluwer, 1996), p 146.

  31. 31.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, 23 April 2014, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:3456 (Lingotto).

  32. 32.

    See also AJV Heeswijck, Rechtsbescherming van ondernemers in aanbestedingsprocedures (Dissertation, University of Groningen, 2014), 116–118.

  33. 33.

    Certain exceptions to this rule have been granted, like a rule of reversal, which means that in specific areas of tort law, notably traffic law and risk norms, the mere breach of a rule thereof switched the burden of proof requirement. In principle, the possibility of alleviating the burden of proof could also be considered for public procurement disputes. However, this is clearly not the direction that the Supreme Court is taking at the moment, as it is narrowing down the rule of reversal concerning norms for specific dangers (in the sense of risk). Public procurement disputes do not fulfill these criteria developed in the more recent case law and therefore do not fall under risk liability and the reversal of proof that it can provide. See HR 29 November 2002, NJ 2004, 304 and 305 (DA), on the reversal of proof rule in general. Further, see Spier et al, above n 25.

  34. 34.

    Hebly & Wilman, ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, above n 13, p 79, citing the authority of Rechtbank Rotterdam, 8 October 2008, LJN BG3796, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2004:AS3395 and Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 26 November 1990, BR 1991/641.

  35. 35.

    ibid. Gerechtshof’ s-Gravenhage was later appealed in Hoge Raad, 9 May 2008.

  36. 36.

    Rechtbank’ s-Gravenhage, 7 August 2006, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2006:BA4384; and Rechtbank’ s-Gravenhage, 7 August 2006, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2006:BA4390.

  37. 37.

    Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 23 November 2010, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2010:BO5839.

  38. 38.

    The Dutch Supreme Court elaborated sub-questions to determine the condition of relativity and on the basis of which the extent of the intended protection of the statutory norm should be examined. See HR 7 May 2004, NJ 2006, 281 (Linda) in Spier et al, above n 25.

  39. 39.

    Rechtbank’ s-Gravenhage, 8 May 2009, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2009:BI3892.

  40. 40.

    Rechtbank Maastricht, 28 August 2003, ECLI:NL:RBMAA:2003:AI1604.

  41. 41.

    Art 2.33.2 of the ‘ARW 2005’ provided for a 90 day period, while Art 67(3) of the ‘UAR-EG 1991’ provided for a 3 month period after the award. See above n 2.

  42. 42.

    See Hebly and Wilman, ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, above n 13, p 76.

  43. 43.

    ibid, p 87 (admitting variations).

  44. 44.

    See generally Wissink & Van Boom, ‘The Netherlands. Damages under Dutch Law’, above n 30, pp 143–158. The doctoral thesis by AJV Heeswijck, Rechtsbescherming van ondernemers in aanbestedingsprocedures, above 32, covers procurement damages in detail, paying specific attention in particular to the quantification stage.

  45. 45.

    See AJ Akkermans & EH Pijnacker Hordjik, ‘Schadevergoeding en schadeberekening’, in WH van Boom et al, Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid , above n 13, p 19.

  46. 46.

    Hoge Raad, NJ 1980, 185 (WHH) (13 June 1980). The case law in this section is based on Spier et al, above n 25.

  47. 47.

    This procedure is governed by Arts 612–615b Rv. See, generally HJ Snijders, CJM Klaassen & GJ Meijer, Nederlands Burgerlijk Procesrecht (Deventer, Kluwer, 2007).

  48. 48.

    See articles 612 – 615b Dutch Civil Procedure, Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering.

  49. 49.

    Hoge Raad, 30 May 1997, NJ 1998, 381 (Elink Schuurman/Van Gastel qq).

  50. 50.

    Hoge Raad, 17 January 1997, NJ 1997, 230 (Moerman/Bakker).

  51. 51.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, 23 April 2008, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2008:BE9582.

  52. 52.

    In the past, this provision has served to sustain that under Dutch law a contract could be declared ineffective on the basis of an ‘in-natura damage claim’. In view of Directive 2007/66, we are not going to discuss this argument further.

  53. 53.

    Spier et al, Verbintenissen uit de wet en Schadevergoeding, above n 25, referring to Hoge Raad, 18 April 1986, NJ 1986, 587.

  54. 54.

    JMJ Van Rijn Van Alkemade, ‘Overheidsaansprakelijkheid voor onrechtmatige verdeling van schaarse publieke rechten’ (2011) Overheid en Aansprakelijkheid 69, p 72.

  55. 55.

    Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, 7 November 2014, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2014:5503. Absent the necessary information on the quantification of the damage, the interim judge holds that it does not have the necessary information to determine the amount of damages in the specific proceedings.

  56. 56.

    Rechtbank Zwolle-Lelystad, 31 January 2007, ECLI:NL:RBZLY:2007:AZ7506, appealed and upheld Gerechtshof Arnhem, 06 April 2010, ECLI:NL:GHARN:2010:BM0044 (Temmink/Gemeente Raalte).

  57. 57.

    Hebly & Wilman, ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, above n 13, p 82.

  58. 58.

    6:96 BW.

  59. 59.

    Rechtbank Zutphen, 28 December 2001, ECLI:NL:RBZUT:2011:BU9991.

  60. 60.

    Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 8 July 2014, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2014:5475.

  61. 61.

    Hebly & Wilman, ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, above 13, p 83.

  62. 62.

    Pijnacker Hordijk et al, Aanbestedingsrecht. Handboek van het Europese en het Nederlandse Aanbestedingsrecht, above n 3, p 663.

  63. 63.

    For an overview of opinions, see Van Rijn van Alkemade, ‘Overheidsaansprakelijkheid voor onrechtmatige verdeling van schaarse publieke rechten’, above n 54, p 73.

  64. 64.

    CEC Jansen, ‘Aanbesteding en offertekostenvergoeding’, in Bert van Roermund, et al (eds), Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid. Preventie, vergoeding en afwikkeling van schade bij aanbestedingsgeschillen. (Schoordijk Instituut Centrum voor Aansprakelijkheidsrecht, 2001), p 79 (calling the system whereby bidding costs are not compensated by the contracting authority the ‘present system’ in the Netherlands).

  65. 65.

    Gerechtshof’ s-Hertogenbosch, 3 November 2009, above n 22.

  66. 66.

    Rechtbank Overijssel, 6 March 2014, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2014:1078.

  67. 67.

    Rechtbank Breda, 21 December 2007, ECLI:NL:RBBRE:2007:BC0940.

  68. 68.

    Akkermans & Pijnacker Hordijk, ‘Schadevergoeding en schadeberekening’, above n 44, p 31. The particular constellation of chance and both aggrieved bidders being the plaintiffs in the procedure therefore do not support a proportional attribution of the lost chance.

  69. 69.

    Rechtbank Utrecht, 4 July 2001, BR 2002/91; and Den Haag, 29 March 2000, Staat en Nederlands Inkoopcentrum (NIC) rolnr. 94/3490 (not published), both discussed Pijnacker Hordijk et al, Aanbestedingsrecht. Handboek, above n 3, p 661.

  70. 70.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, 29 May 2012, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2012:BX1677.

  71. 71.

    Rechtbank s’ Gravenhage, 28 April 2005, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2005:AU4277.

  72. 72.

    Lingotto, above n 31.

  73. 73.

    Spier et al, Verbintenissen uit de wet en Schadevergoeding, above n 25.

  74. 74.

    AJ Akkermans, Proportionele aansprakelijkheid bij onzeker causaal verband. Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar wenselijkheid, grondslagen en afgrenzing van aansprakelijkheid naar rato van veroorzakingswaarschijnlijkheid (Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, 1997), p 182.

  75. 75.

    ibid.

  76. 76.

    AR Bloembergen & SD Lindenbergh, Schadevergoeding (Deventer, Kluwer, 2001), p 8.

  77. 77.

    Spier et al, above n 25.

  78. 78.

    Art 6:100 BW. A minority view argues that the calculation of costs which are not incurred by the aggrieved bidder due to the non-execution of the contract are to be factored in the quantification on the basis of this article. Most views, for example AJV Heeswijck, above n 32, p 133, oppose such interpretation as non-incurred costs here are not independent benefits, but part of the determination of the extent of the losses.

  79. 79.

    Arts 6:101 and 6:102 BW.

  80. 80.

    Art 6:109 BW.

Bibliography

  • Akkermans, AJ (1997) Proportionele aansprakelijkheid bij onzeker causaal verband. Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar wenselijkheid, grondslagen en afgrenzing van aansprakelijkheid naar rato van veroorzakingswaarschijnlijkheid (Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant).

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkermans, AJ & EH Pijnacker Hordjik, EH (2001) ‘Schadevergoeding en schadeberekening’, in WH van Boom et al, Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid (Schoordijk Instituut Centrum voor aansprakelijkheid).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebly, JM & Wilman, FG (2011) ‘Damages for Breach of Public Procurement Law. The Dutch Situation’, in DR Fairgrieve & F Lichère (eds), Public Procurement Law. Damages as an Effective Remedy (Oxford, Hart Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeswijck, AJV (2014) Rechtsbescherming van ondernemers in aanbestedingsprocedures (Dissertation, University of Groningen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, CEC (2001) ‘Aanbesteding en offertekostenvergoeding’, in Bert van Roermund et al (eds), Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid. Preventie, vergoeding en afwikkeling van schade bij aanbestedingsgeschillen. (Schoordijk Instituut Centrum voor Aansprakelijkheidsrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijnacker Hordijk, EH, Van Boom, WH & Van Nouhuys, JF (2009) Aanbestedingsrecht. Handboek van het Europese en het Nederlandse Aanbestedingsrecht (Den Haag, Sdu Uitgevers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruygvoorn, MR (2011)‘Bestaat de “tweede fase” uit Plas/Valburg nog?’ 2 Contracteren, 39, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, HJ, Klaassen, CJM & Meijer, GJ (2007) Nederlands Burgerlijk Procesrecht (Deventer, Kluwer).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spier, J, Hartlief, T, Van Maanen, GE & Vriesendorp, RD (2006) Verbintenissen uit de wet en Schadevergoeding (Deventer, Kluwer).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Alkemade, JMJ Van Rijn (2001) ‘Overheidsaansprakelijkheid voor onrechtmatige verdeling van schaarse publieke rechten’ Overheid en Aansprakelijkheid 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wijngaarden, MA and Chao-Duivis, MAB (2008) Hoofdstukken Bouwrecht: Aanbestedingsrecht (Den Haag, Kluwer).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissink, MH & Van Boom, WH (1996) ‘The Netherlands. Damages under Dutch Law’, in U Magnus (ed), Unification of Tort Law: Damages (The Hague, Kluwer).

    Google Scholar 

  • WJ Slagter, WJ (2001) ‘Aanbestedingsaansprakelijkheid: grondslagen en knelpunten’, in WH van Boom et al (eds), Aanbesteding en aansprakelijkheid (Schoordijk Instituut Centrum voor aansprakelijkheid).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Hanna Schebesta

  2. Law & Governance Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Hanna Schebesta

Authors
  1. Hanna Schebesta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schebesta, H. (2016). Case Study: The Netherlands. In: Damages in EU Public Procurement Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23612-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation