After I published some comments on the EFTA Court’s Judgment in Fosen-Linjen Some thoughts AS v AtB AS (E-16/16! see here ) some three weeks ago! I have had some interesting exchanges and discussions with some academic colleagues and with policy-makers and practitioners. I am grateful telegram data to all of them for forcing me to think harder about som of the issues that Some thoughts arise from the Fosen-Linjen case and! in particular! for their repeated invitations to consider it by comparison to the Judgment of the UK Supreme.
Court in Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v EnergySolutions
EU Ltd (now ATK Energy Ltd) [2017] UKSC 34 (the ‘NDA’ judgment; for my views on an interim decision at the start of the litigation! see here ).
Indeed! comparing those cases is interesting! for the Fosen-Linjen and NDA judgments offer diametrically contract regulations 2006 ; see nda ! opposed views of the interaction between the use of damages as a procurement remedy and the principle of State liability for breach of EU law! in particular concerning the threshold for liability under the so-called second Fran dition— ie whether liability arises from a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of EU public procurement law! or from any (unqualified) breach of the rules.A propos the interaction
I compare the approach to the procurement remedies
State liability interaction in both judgments! to then offer some brief reflections on (2) the implications of minimum caseno email list harmonization of this subject-matter through the Remedies Directive (ie! Dir 89/665/EEC! as amended by Dir 2007/66/EC; see its consolidated version )! (3) the possibility to reform the Remedies Directive so as to achieve maximum harmonization! and (4) th tial implications of a damages-based procurement enforcement strategy in the context of the emergence of EU tort law. This post is meant! more than anything! as an invitation for further discussion.
