The cases concern the review two public procurement regarding framework agreements, of which one procurement concerns a framework agreement to be signed with one supplier and the other a framework agreement to be signed with several suppliers. In both cases, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the contracting authorities had breached the procurement legislation by not stating the maximum quantity or the maximum value to be covered by the framework agreement.
However, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the suppliers had not shown that such deficiency has caused the suppliers harm or could cause the suppliers harm within the meaning of Chapter 20, section 6 of the Public Procurement Act. This is in view of the fact that the suppliers had not requested any clarifications from the contracting authorities and that the suppliers' descriptions of the damage were relatively general. Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that what the suppliers had stated regarding having been deprived of the possibility to participate in any future procurement was thus irrelevant to the assessment of whether the company was harmed or was at risk of being harmed as a consequence of the deficiency in the procurements in question.
Read the judgment here: