We had the opportunity to represent the Contracting Authority in a case in which an issue was being resolved regarding the timing and scope of filing an appeal in public procurement proceedings, which was of of great importance in practice. It was crucial to determine whether a participant in the proceeding should wait with the appeal for the rejection of its offer or the selection of another offer, or challenge the Contracting Authority’s previous actions if they could have had an impact on its situation. In this particular case, the dispute concerned the cancellation of the call for explanations of the abnormally low price and the determination of whether and when the interest of the participant in the proceedings was violated.
Our law firm successfully argued that the appellant had knowledge of the Contracting Authority’s actions much earlier, which meant that it could have filed an appeal earlier than it did.
The National Chamber of Appeal fully shared our position, finding the appeal to be late. It emphasized that the appellant had already suffered real, not hypothetical, damage at the time of the cancellation of the action of selecting the most advantageous offer and the initial request for clarification. Thus, the subsequent presentation of charges on the date of selection of the most advantageous offer was deemed unjustified, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in part as untimely.
With this decision, our client was successful, and we had the opportunity to contribute to shaping practice on this important procedural issue.
Thank you for your trust and we are happy to share this achievement!
