#8 Art. 18 (2) and the Tim case: a sustainability principle? & procrastination strategies
In episode #8, we discuss article 18(2) Directive 2014/24/EU. Its nature, character and scope as well as shortcomings. We focus our discussions on analyzing whether the sustainability referred to in Article 18(2) can pass the test to be truly understood as a procurement principle. This leads us to reflect on CJEU ruling in Case C-395/18 Tim SpA where the court refers to 18(2) as a ‘cardinal value’ with which the Member States must ensure compliance. For dessert, we discuss strategies to fight procrastination and get writing!
- Is Article 18 (2) binding and if so on who?
- What are “applicable measures”?
- How are we to understand “applicable obligations”?
- Is 18(2) a general principle of procurement law?What does Tim say in the context of Art 18(2)?
– How do we fight procrastination and get writing?
Let’s dish up public procurement law!
Marta Andhov & Willem Janssen
You might also be interested in Marta’s and Willem’s publications on this subject. For a discussion about the character of Article 18 (2) see:
- M. Andhov, “Contracting authorities and strategic goals of public procurement – a relationship defined by discretion?” in Sanja Bogojevic, Xavier Groussot, Jörgen Hettne (eds.): Discretion in EU Procurement Law (Hart Publishing 2019).
- M. Andhov, Commentary to Article 18(2) in R. Caranta, A. Sánchez-Graells Commentary of the Public Procurement Directive (2014/24/EU) (Edward Elgar 2021);
- W.A. Janssen, G. Bouwman, ‘Legislating societal value into Dutch public procurement law: symbolism or substance?’, Public Procurement Law Review, Issue 2, 2020, pp. 91-102;
- W.A. Janssen, ‘Verplicht maatschappelijk verantwoord aanbesteden: een eerste verkenning van een paradigmaverandering’ [Mandatory sustainable public procurement: an exploration of a paradigm change], Tijdschrift Aanbestedingsrecht & Staatssteunrecht, 1, 2020, pp. 19-30.