Practice Team M
Practice Team T
Practice Team X
Administration and Reception
Fees Administration
Legal Information and Research
Legal Aid Link
Marketing
Matrix Mascots
Arbitration and Mediation
Civil Actions Against the Police
Commercial Law
Community Care Law
Competition Law and Regulation
Crime and Regulatory Law
Discrimination and Equality
Education Law
Election Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
EU Law
Extradition and Mutual Assistance
Human Rights
Immigration Asylum and Free Movement
Inquests and Inquiries
International Law
Local Government Law
Media and Information Law
Mental Capacity and Mental Health
Prison Law
Public Law
Sports Law
Tax Law
Home
Organisation
Members
Staff
Areas of Practice
Opportunities at Matrix
News
Events
Contact
Address
Griffin Building
Gray's Inn, London
WC1R 5LN
DX
400 Chancery Lane
Email
matrix@matrixlaw.co.uk
Telephone
+44 (0)20 7404 3447
Fax
+44 (0)20 7404 3448
Uniplex case holds potential to change the "promptly" requirement
Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority (C 406/08)
CJEU – 28 Jan 2010
In a reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court held: that Directive 89/665 (on co-ordination of laws, etc, relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts) required the period for bringing public procurement infringement proceedings to begin on the date on which the claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged infringement – and not on the date of the alleged infringement.
This was because art 1(1) of the Directive required Member States to guarantee that unlawful decisions could be subjected to effective review that was as swift as possible. This could only be done if the periods laid down for bringing such proceedings started to run from the date on which the claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the infringement. Secondly, the objective of rapidity pursued by Directive 89/665 must be achieved by national law in compliance with the requirement of legal certainty. A limitation period, the duration of which is placed at the discretion of the competent court, is not predictable in its effects. Therefore, a requirement under national law that proceedings be brought “promptly” or be at risk of being dismissed failed to transpose the requirements of the Directive and was inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty. Further, the Directive required the national court so far as possible, by virtue of the discretion conferred on it, to extend the limitation period in such a manner to ensure the claimant had a period equivalent to that which it would have had if the period provided for in national legislation had run from the date on which the claimant knew or ought to have known, of the potential infringement, failing which it was for the national court to disapply the national provisions in order to ensure respect for the objectives of the Directive.
Maurice Sheridan
was involved in this case.
For judgment, please visit:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C-406/08