Vastus pöördumisele


s
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY, ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND SMES
Single Market for Public Administrations
Procurement Legislation and Enforcement
INDICATORS FOR MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF REMEDY SYSTEMS
Guidelines for data collection

1. Number of first instance review decisions
2. Median length of first instance reviews
3. Number of first instance review decisions that were appealed to the (next) judicial level and its results
Scope and definitions
The data shall only cover public procurement procedures falling under the EU directives1 (i.e. above EU thresholds, including exemptions and exceptions). It shall cover reviews made both before and after contract signature.
The data shall cover all relevant bodies, regardless of whether they are administrative or judicial; regardless of whether they are national, regional or local. In case of multiple level administrative review it shall only include the data from the first instance.
(For those Member States that cannot disaggregate the data based on the EU thresholds or have only a part of the data available (e.g. no information on post-contractual review, regional information not shared), if possible, please give your “best guess” estimate of the additional/missing information in the relevant Comments section.)
The data on reviews started following a complaint and ex officio2 shall be collected separately.
Indicators are requested per year (2018, 2017 and 2016). Decisions should be included in the calculation for the calendar year in which they were issued (i.e. dates relating to years where the complaint was submitted, or where decisions were appealed to a higher instance should be excluded/ignored).
“Decision” means a binding outcome of the review (be it started following a complaint or ex officio). (Typically, we would expect the number of non-ex-officio decisions to be equal to the number of complaints.)
It includes decisions to reject a complaint3, decisions on interim measures containing an assessment of the case and not followed by any other decision4, and decisions regardless of whether multiple decisions are linked to the same procedure. Decisions not on the merits, i.e. “procedural” or “technical” decisions should not be included (e.g. decisions on nomination of experts to provide expert view).
1. NUMBER OF FIRST INSTANCE REVIEW DECISIONS
It shall include all the first instance review decisions.
2. MEDIAN LENGTH OF FIRST INSTANCE REVIEWS
It shall be the median5 length of all the first instance reviews.
Length is defined as the number of calendar days between a starting date and an end date.
• The starting date is when the complaint is registered or an ex officio proceeding initiated.
• The end date is when the review decision is issued.

3. NUMBER OF FIRST INSTANCE REVIEW DECISIONS THAT WERE APPEALED TO THE (NEXT) JUDICIAL LEVEL AND ITS RESULTS
It shall include all the first instance review decisions that were appealed to the (next) judicial level, both on merit or procedural reasons
For first instance judicial review bodies, “next judicial level” refers to the second judicial level; for first instance administrative review bodies, “next judicial level” refers to the first judicial review.
Furthermore, it shall include the number of first instance review decisions that were a) (primarily) upheld; b) (primarily) rejected; or c) neither upheld nor rejected by the (next) judicial level (e.g. because they were not yet decided, retracted).
Member State
Year
2024
Comments
1. Number of decisions
133
Overall number of decisions in 2024 was 258 (125 below EU Directives’ thresholds, 133 above)
upon a complaint
133

ex officio
0
Estonian Public Procurement Review Committee does not act ex officio
2. Median length of the review
26
-
upon a complaint
26

ex officio
N/A
Estonian Public Procurement Review Committee does not act ex officio
3. Number of review decisions appealed and their results
-
-
Number of review decisions appealed
19
In one case three appeals were filed against one review decision (two upheld, one rejected)
Number of decisions (primarily) upheld
13 

Number of decisions (primarily) rejected
3 

Number of decisions – other
3 
in 1 case, the appeal was withdrawn; 2 case ended due to contracting authority cancelling the procurement procedure in question