How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearch

Standard

How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements? / Andrecka, Marta.

2013. Paper presented at Procurement week 2013, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearch

Harvard

Andrecka, M 2013, 'How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?', Paper presented at Procurement week 2013, Bangor, United Kingdom, 18/03/2013 - 22/03/2013. <http://www.icps.bangor.ac.uk>

APA

Andrecka, M. (2013). How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?. Paper presented at Procurement week 2013, Bangor, United Kingdom. http://www.icps.bangor.ac.uk

Vancouver

Andrecka M. How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?. 2013. Paper presented at Procurement week 2013, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Author

Andrecka, Marta. / How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?. Paper presented at Procurement week 2013, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Bibtex

@conference{ee07dfbffb0f4818ac2afeafae68ff93,
title = "How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?",
abstract = "The classification of PPP contracts for the application of the Directive 2004/18/EC is not an easy task. This is due to the fact that PPP contracts usually include several types of different activities, such as public works, supply, service, or even establishment of an institutional framework for PPP. For the classification of contracts which include works, supplies and services, the Directive establishes a form of mixed contracts, on the basis of which appropriate provisions are able to be applied. However, the question remains whether the same form of mixed contracts may be used for PPPs, including the establishment of IPPPs and, if so, how the rules should be interpreted. Using the CJEU{\textquoteright}s rulings in Loutraki C-145/08 and Oulun Kapunki C-215/09 the author will show that applying the theory of mixed contracts to the classification of IPPPs poses certain legal uncertainties.These legal uncertainties may include the scope and extent of the indivisibility of the contract (which is a requirement of an existence of the mixed contract), as well as bases for separation of the certain elements of the contract. The author will analyse both cases and will pay particular attention to the details which may lead to different CJEU{\textquoteright}s decisions.",
author = "Marta Andrecka",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
note = "Procurement week 2013 : Procurement Research: Changing Policy with Better Research ; Conference date: 18-03-2013 Through 22-03-2013",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - How to classify an Institutionalised Public Private Partnership (IPPP) in the context of public procurement requirements?

AU - Andrecka, Marta

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The classification of PPP contracts for the application of the Directive 2004/18/EC is not an easy task. This is due to the fact that PPP contracts usually include several types of different activities, such as public works, supply, service, or even establishment of an institutional framework for PPP. For the classification of contracts which include works, supplies and services, the Directive establishes a form of mixed contracts, on the basis of which appropriate provisions are able to be applied. However, the question remains whether the same form of mixed contracts may be used for PPPs, including the establishment of IPPPs and, if so, how the rules should be interpreted. Using the CJEU’s rulings in Loutraki C-145/08 and Oulun Kapunki C-215/09 the author will show that applying the theory of mixed contracts to the classification of IPPPs poses certain legal uncertainties.These legal uncertainties may include the scope and extent of the indivisibility of the contract (which is a requirement of an existence of the mixed contract), as well as bases for separation of the certain elements of the contract. The author will analyse both cases and will pay particular attention to the details which may lead to different CJEU’s decisions.

AB - The classification of PPP contracts for the application of the Directive 2004/18/EC is not an easy task. This is due to the fact that PPP contracts usually include several types of different activities, such as public works, supply, service, or even establishment of an institutional framework for PPP. For the classification of contracts which include works, supplies and services, the Directive establishes a form of mixed contracts, on the basis of which appropriate provisions are able to be applied. However, the question remains whether the same form of mixed contracts may be used for PPPs, including the establishment of IPPPs and, if so, how the rules should be interpreted. Using the CJEU’s rulings in Loutraki C-145/08 and Oulun Kapunki C-215/09 the author will show that applying the theory of mixed contracts to the classification of IPPPs poses certain legal uncertainties.These legal uncertainties may include the scope and extent of the indivisibility of the contract (which is a requirement of an existence of the mixed contract), as well as bases for separation of the certain elements of the contract. The author will analyse both cases and will pay particular attention to the details which may lead to different CJEU’s decisions.

M3 - Paper

T2 - Procurement week 2013

Y2 - 18 March 2013 through 22 March 2013

ER -

ID: 156452594