.png)
| Article title | Determining Court Jurisdiction in the Proceedings as Regards Disputes in the Public Procurement Domain | ||
| Authors |
PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of civil law and procedure Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs (Dnipro, Ukraine) ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7072-0589 artem1191@gmail.com
Lawyer (Dnipro, Ukraine) ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6921-7182 jurist24.7@gmail.com
|
||
| Name of magazine | Legal journal «Law of Ukraine» (Ukrainian version) | ||
| Issue | 8/2020 | ||
| Сторінки | [262-275] | ||
| Annotation | Today, our State is harmonizing the public procurement system to comply with the European standards. In particular, on April 19, 2020, the redrafted Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement” has come into effect. The changes are aimed at adapting domestic legislation to the requirements of the Association Agreement between Ukraine, on the one part, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their member States, on the other part, as well as at raising the level of competition in the public procurement domain and promoting transparency in the use of budget money. The overall success of the public sector depends on efficient operation of the public procurement system. In this context, efficiency should be understood as saving of budget money while ensuring high quality of products, goods, works and services purchased. Besides, public procurement is an important tool for influencing economic and social processes. However, despite the changes taking place in legislation, there are still problematic aspects in the domain of public procurement, and it is worth highlighting such of them as the issue of determining court jurisdiction in the proceedings as regards disputes in the public procurement domain. The purpose of the article is to determine court jurisdiction in the proceedings as regards disputes in the public procurement domain and to provide recommendations for improving the legislation in this area. In the course of the study, it is established that efficient dispute resolution is hindered by the confusion and uncertainty of subject-matter jurisdiction in the proceedings as regards disputes in the public procurement domain. Due to the unformed case law of the Supreme Court on this issue, trial courts and courts of appeal are unable to reach the same opinion when determining the subject-matter jurisdiction. Having analyzed the legal nature of the decisions made by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, the author concludes that there is a need to consider cases on their appeal by administrative courts, since such decisions do not differ from the decisions made by other entities of power. Summarizing current views of scholars and the analyzed case law, the article proposes changes to current legislation, namely, part 1, article 20 of the Economic Procedure Code of Ukraine, in which it would be advisable to consolidate the competence of administrative courts over cases relating to public procurement contracts.
|
||
| Keywords | public procurement; court jurisdiction; subject-matter jurisdiction; instance jurisdiction; territorial jurisdiction (court jurisdiction). | ||
| References |
Bibliography Authored books
Journal articles 2. Kolomoiets T, ‘Rozmezhuvannia yurysdyktsiinykh povnovazhen mizh administratyvnymy ta hospodarskymy sudamy: okremi problemni pytannia sohodennia’ [‘Differentiation of Jurisdictional Powers between Administrative and Economic Courts: Some Challenges of Our Time’] (2009) 1 Visnyk Zaporizkoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Yurydychni nauky 69–78 (in Ukrainian). 3. Kuibida R, ‘Spetsializatsiia, terytorialnist ta instantsiinist v orhanizatsii systemy sudiv Ukrainy’ [‘Specialization, Territoriality and Court Levels in the Arrangement of Ukraine’s Court System’] (2005) 9 Biul. M-va yustytsii Ukrainy 82–91 (in Ukrainian). 4. Osadchyi A, ‘Instytut pidsudnosti v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi’ [‘Institution of Court Jurisdiction in the Administrative Court Procedure’] (2007) 35 Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava 90–4 (in Ukrainian). 5. Snidevych O, ‘Problemy rozmezhuvannia yurysdyktsii’ [‘Problems in Differentiation of Jurisdictions’] (2012) 2 Visnyk Vyshchoi rady yustytsii 41–53 (in Ukrainian). 6. Tsurkan M, ‘Problemy vyznachennia yurysdyktsii sprav za uchastiu orhaniv Antymonopolnoho komitetu’ [‘Problems in Determining the Jurisdiction of Cases Involving the Antimonopoly Committee Bodies’] (2012) 93 Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Yurydychni nauky 10–4 (in Ukrainian). 7. Viktorchuk M, ‘Rozmezhuvannia yurysdyktsii administratyvnykh i hospodarskykh sudiv v Ukraini’ [‘Differentiation of Jurisdiction of Administrative and Economic Courts in Ukraine’] (2016) 3 Naukovyi chasopys Natsionalnoi akademii prokuraturyUkrainy 49–57 (in Ukrainian).
Theses 8. Ilkov V, ‘Dzherela prava v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy’ [‘Sources of Law in the Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine’] (dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2017) (in Ukrainian). 9. Serdiuk V, ‘Iurysdyktsiia sudiv Ukrainy’ [‘Jurisdiction of the Courts of Ukraine’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2003) (in Ukrainian).
Websites 10. Bevzenko V, ‘Chomu ne mozhna zvernutysia do adminsudu lyshe tomu, shcho ne spodobalosia rishennia vlady?’ [‘Why I May Not Go to an Administrative Court Just Because I Didn’t Like a Public Authority’s Decision?’] (Rakurs, 25.01.2020) <https://racurs.ua/b64-chomu-ne-mojna-zvernutisya-do-adminsudu-lishe-tomu-schonespodobalosya-rishennya-vladi.html> (accessed: 14.06.2020) (in Ukrainian).
|
||
|
|||
