Obligation to allot the markets of legal services!
Rule n ° 1:
A contracting authority that decides to launch an advertising and competitive bidding procedure for legal advice and representation on all matters of public law and on matters relating to civil and criminal law is required to to allot its market given the diversity of services requested.
Finally !!!! A first step motivated by common sense but shy .....
Indeed, always being so reluctant when it comes to ruling in favor of the ousted candidates, the Council of State did not wish to rule only on the case (whereas it could very well have done in the case) legal services contracts which deal with "all" matters of public law (public contracts, town planning, civil service, intercommunality, public domain, public accountability, electoral law, etc.) which also constitute a a great obstacle to the principle of the freedom of access to the public order and which considerably reduce the number of potential candidates (with the argument boat systematically invoked: "yes but you could answer in grouping" while one knows very well that the groups of law firms are extremely rare or non-existent).
This judgment is therefore a breakthrough even if it remains very timid because -and it was not asked - the Council of State seems to admit that the absence of allotment is an irregularity in this case only because (I) it is one of an important commune (without of course indicating where is the cursor between a small, an average and an important commune to leave him the maximum of subjectivity when a new case will present) (Ii) it had the capacity to coordinate the services (also the assessment of the public procurement department of a community and its capacity to coordinate the services between the different providers) and finally (Iii) because of the volume of orders envisaged by the market (again, the criterion of the volume of orders is retained to allow the Council of State to go back when it pleases it
Rule n ° 2:
The absence of an allotment is liable to prejudice the candidate whose bid was rejected on the ground that he did not have sufficient file processing capacity to deal with all the matters envisaged by the contract.