AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ HUKUKU GENEL İLKELERİNİN EŞİK DEĞERİN ALTINDAKİ KAMU İHALELERİNE UYGULANMASI

Öz

Eşik değerlerin altındaki kamu ihaleleri genel olarak yalnızca üye devletlerin ulusal kurallarına tâbidir. Ancak, bu alımlara ‘sınır ötesi ilgi’ olması halinde, AB birincil hukukuna, yani Avrupa Birliğinin İşleyişi Hakkındaki Antlaşmanın ilke ve kurallarına tâbi olabilirler. Bu düşük tutarlı ihaleler, çeşitli kamu ihale direktiflerinden oluşan AB ikincil hukukuna tâbi değildir. Bu makalede yukarıda belirtilen AB kamu ihale direktifleri kapsamına girmeyen eşik değerlerin altındaki kamu ihaleleri ele alınmaktadır. Makale, Avrupa Birliğinin İşleyişi Hakkındaki Antlaşmanın genel ilkelerine ilişkin Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı içtihadının, eşik değerlerin altındaki kamu alımlarına uygulanması bakımından anlaşılmasına ışık tutmakta ve üye devletlerin söz konusu kamu ihalelerinde iç pazarın tüm avantajlarından yararlanmalarına yardımcı olmak için en iyi uygulamaları önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu ihaleleri
• eşik değerler
• sınır-ötesi ilgi
• şeffaflık
• eşit muamele

APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW TO PUBLIC PROCUREMENTS BELOW THE THRESHOLD VALUE

Öz

Public contracts below-thresholds are subject, in general, only to national rules of the Member States. They may, however, be subject to EU primary law, that is the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union principles and rules, in case they have ‘cross-border interest’. These lower value contracts are not subject to EU secondary law that is the various of public procurement directives. This article addresses the above mentioned of contracts not covered by the EU public procurement directives. The article sheds light on its understanding of the European Union Court of Justice case-law on general principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in terms of their implementation to public procurements below the tresholds and suggests best practices in order to help the Member States to reap the full benefit of the Internal Market.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public contracts
• tresholds
• cross-border interest
• transparency
• equal treatment

Kaynakça

1. Kitap/Kitap Bölümü ve Makaleler
2. ALYANAK Servet: AB Kamu İhalesi Hukuku, Seçkin Yayınları, 2015.
3. ARROWSMITH, Sue: The Purpose of the EU Procurement Directives: Ends, Means and the Implications for National Regulatory Space for Commercial and Horizontal Procurement Policies, in 14 Cambridge Yearbook Eur. Legal Studies 1, 2012, ss. 1-47.
4. ARROWSMITH Sue, “The Past and Future Evolution of EC Procurement Law: From Framework to Common Code?”, 35 Public Contract Law Journal. 2006, ss. 337, 339.
5. ARROWSMITH Sue: The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005.
6. BAYKAL Sanem: AT Hukukunun Etkili Biçimde Uygulanması ve Bireysel Haklar, Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Toplulukları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Araştırma Dizisi No:14, Ankara, 2002.
7. BOGDANOWICZ, Piotr: “Cross-Border Interest and Concession Contracts: a Critical Approach”, European Procurement and Public Private Partnership Law Review, 2015 (2), ss. 83-91.
8. BOGDANOWICZ Piotr, “(Still) Qualitative Approach to a Cross-Border Interest and Application of European Union Law to Concessions? Some Remarks on C-388/12 Comune di Ancona Judgment”, Public Procurement Law Review, (2015) 1, NA22.

9. BOVIS Christopher: EC Public Procurement: Case Law and Regulation, Oxford University Press, Newyork, 2006.
10. BOVIS Christopher: Contribution to Growth: European Public Procurement Delivering improved rights for European citizens and businesses, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies, January 2019, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDataetudes/ STUD/2019/626088/IPOL_STU(2019)626088_EN.pdf (erişim 11.09.2023).
11. CARANTA Roberto / DRAGOS Dacian: (eds) Outside the EU Procurement Directives - Inside the Treaties? (Vol 4, European Law Series, DJOF, 2012).
12. DE MARS Sylvia, “The limits of general principles: a procurement case study”, European Law Review, 316.
13. DRAGOS Dacian C. / VORNICU Roxana: European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, Yıl: 2015, ss. 187-206.
14. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services, EU Public Procurement Legislation: Delivering Results Summary of Evaluation Report, Ref. Ares(2016)909599 - 22/02/2016.
15. TRYBUS Martin: Public Contracts in European Union Internal Market Law: Foundations and Requirements, in Comparative Law on Public Contracts, ss. 81-121 (Rozen Noguellou & Ulrich Stelkens eds., 2010).
16. DINGEL Dorthe Dahlgaard: A Harmonization of the National Judicial Review of the Application of European Community Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague-London-Boston, 1999.
17. HILLGER Jens: “The award of a public contract as state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC”, Public Procurement Law Review, 3, 2003,s.109-130.
18. JAN DRIJBER Berend / STERGIOU Helene, Public Procurement Law and Internal Market Law, 46 Common Market Law Review, 2009.
19. JANS J.H. / LANGE R. De / PRECHAL S. / WIDDERSHOVEN R.J.G.M., Europenisation of Public Law, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen/Amsterdam, 2007, s. 42.
20. ROE Sally / LESSENICH Christof: “Submission of a bid by a person who has carried out preparatory work for a procurement”, Public Procurement Law Review, 4, NA93-97, 2005, s. NA93-97.
21. LENAERTS Koen / ARTS Dirk / IGNACE Maselis: Procedural Law of the European Union, 2nd ed., Editor BRAY Robert, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2006.
22. MARDAS Dimitri / TRIANTAFYLLOU Dimitri: “Criteria for qualitative selection in public procurement: a legal and economic analysis”, Public Procurement Law Review, 4, 1995, s.145-158.
23. WELTZIEN Kurt: “Avoiding the procurement rules by awarding contracts to an in-house entity - scope of the procurement directives in the classical sector”, Public Procurement Law Review, 2005.
24. WILLIAMS Rhodri: “The new Procurement Directives of the European Union”, Public Procurement Law Review, 4, 2004.
25. TILLOTSON John / FOSTER Nigel: Text, Cases and Materials on EUROPEAN UNION LAW, 4th Edition, Cavendish Publishing, London, 2003.
26. TRIDIMAS Takis: The General Principles of EU Law, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006.
27. FEENSTRA Sjoerd: “European Communities: concessions and other similar forms of public/private partnership: a draft interpretative communication”, Public Procurement Law Review, 1999, 4, CS85-91.
28. Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları
29. Case 31/87, Gebroeders Beentjes B.V. v. Netherlands, [1988] E.C.R. 4635;
30. Case C-87/94, Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium (“Wallon Buses”), 1996 E.C.R. 1-2043;
31. Case C-243/89 Commission v Denmark (“Storebaelt”), [1993] ECR I-3353;
32. Case C-21/03, Fabricom v Etat belge, 2005 E.C.R. I-1559;
33. Case C-513/99, Concordia Bus Finland v. Helsinki, 2002 E.C.R. 1-7213.
34. Case T-260/94 Air Inter SA, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 1997. European Commission, Draft Commission interpretative communication on concessions under Community law on public contracts O.J. [1999] C94/04 s. 12-13.
35. Case 31/87, Gebroeders Beentjes v. The Netherlands [1988] E.C.R. 4653; [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 287.
36. Case C-76/81 Transporoute et Traveaux SA v. Minister of Public Works [1982] E.C.R. I-417;
37. Case C-174/82, Officier van Justitie v. Sandoz BV [1983] ECR 2445;
38. Case C-274/87 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic. of Germany, [1989] ECR 229.
39. Cases C-324/98, (Telaustria), Telaustria v Telekom Austria [2000] ECR I-10745, parag.[ 62];
40. C-231/03, (Coname), Coname v Comune di Cingia de'Botti, [2005] ECR I- 7287 parag. [16] ila [19];
41. C-458/03 (Parking Brixen), Parking Brixen GmbH v. Gemeinde Brixen. 2005 E.C.R. I-8612., parag. [49].
42. C-59/00, Bent Mousten Vestergaard, [2001] ECR I-9505, parag. [20]
43. C-264/03, Commission v France, 2005 ECR I-8831. 20.10.2005, parag. [32] ve[33] 32 ve 33;
44. C-234/03, (Contse), Case C-234/03, Contse and others [2005] ECR I-9315, parag. [47] ila [49] arasına bakınız. Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH und Telefonadress GmbH v. Telekom Austria AG [2000] E.C.R. I-10745, ECJ, parag. [4] ve [12].
45. C-324/98 sayılı Karar, Telaustria, [2000] ECR I-10745, 62.paragraf, C-231/03, 21.07.2005 sayılı yargılama kararı, 16-19.paragraflar.
46. C-458/03, Parking Brixen, 13.10.2005 tarihli yargılama kararı, 49.paragraf.
47. C-59/00, Bent Mousten Vestergaard, [2001] ECR I-9505, 20.paragraf.
48. C-264/03, Commisison v France, 20.10.2005 tarihli yargılama kararı, 32 ve 33.paragraflar.
49. Case C-231/03 Coname [2005] ECR I-7287, 20.paragraf. Joined Cases C 147/06 and C 148/06 SECAP [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:277, at [30].
50. Case C 507/03, Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-9777, paragraph 32.
51. Case C 195/04, Commission v. Finland [2007] ECR I-3351, paragraph 25.
52. Case, C-388/12 Comune do Ancona ECLI:EU:C:2013:734.
53. Case C-221/12 Belgacom EU:C:2013:736.
54. Case C-470/13 Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt ECLI:EU:C:2014:2469.
55. Case C-278/14 SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL ECLI:EU:C:2015:228.
56. Case C-113/13 Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 «Spezzino» and others ECLI:EU:C:2014:2440.
57. Case C-278/14 SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL ECLI:EU:C:2015:228.
58. Case C-388/12 Comune do Ancona ECLI:EU:C:2013:734.
59. Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH und Telefonadress GmbH v. Telekom Austria AG [2000] E.C.R. I-10745, ECJ, parag. [4] ve [12], [62].
60. C-458/03 (Parking Brixen), Parking Brixen GmbH v. Gemeinde Brixen. 2005 E.C.R. I-8612., parag. [49].
61. Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle [2005] ECR I-1, 45. paragraf.
62. Case, Commission v Ireland, paragraphs [26] and [29 – 31].
63. Case C 95/10, Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança, ECLI:EU:C:2011:161 [35].
64. Case C-496/99 P Succhi di frutta [2004] ECR I-3801, 111. paragraf ve Case C-6/05 Medipack, 53. paragraf.
65. C-50/00 sayılı karara Union de Pequenos Agricultores. [2002] ECR I 6677, 39.paragraf ve 222/86 sayılı karar, Heylens, [1987] ECR 4097, 14. paragraf.
66. C-3/76 Rewe v. Landwirtschaftskammer Saarland [1976] E.C.R. 1989 ve C-45/76 Comet v. Produktschap voor Siegerwassen [1976] E.C.R. 2043.
67. Case C-231/96 Edis [1998] E.C.R. I-4951.
68. Mevzuat ..
69. 23.6.2006 tarih ve COM 2006/C 179/02 sayılı Kamu İhale Direktifleri Hükümlerinin Tamamen veya Kısmen Kapsamı Dışında Olan Kamu İhale Sözleşmelerinin Verilmesine Uygulanacak Topluluk Hukuku Hakkında Komisyon Yorumlayıcı Tebliği, Brüksel, (OJ C 179, 1.8.2006), (Commission interpretative communication n° 2006/C 179/02 on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives).
70. 2014/24/EU sayılı direktif (AB üyesi devletlerdeki kamu mal, yapım ve hizmet alımı ihalelerinin karara bağlanması prosedürlerine ilişkin direktif), OJ L/94/65, 28.3.2014.
71. 2014/25/EU sayılı direktif (AB üyesi devletlerdeki su, enerji, ulaştırma ve posta sektörlerinde (iktisadî kamu hizmetleri sektörleri) faaliyet gösteren kuruluşların alım usullerinin koordinasyonuna ilişkin direktif, OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243–374.
72. 2009/81/EC sayılı direktif (savunma ve güvenlik alımlarıyla ilgili direktif) OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76–136.
73. 89/665/EEC sayılı Direktif, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, sf.33 ve 92/13/EEC sayılı Direktif, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992 sf.14
74. EU Commission, COM(2023) 460 final, Brussels, 28.7.2023, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts and on the impact on the internal market of the exclusions set out in Article 12.
75. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1951 amending Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the threshold for concessions; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1952 amending Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the thresholds for public supply, service and works contracts, and design contests; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1953 amending Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the thresholds for supply, service and works contracts, and design contests.