Order No. 2015-899 of 23 July 2015 on public procurement and Decree No. 2016-360 of 25 March 2016 define the rules for the award and execution of public contracts. The Cabinet Palmier - Brault - Associés decrypts for you the jurisprudential news of the public markets.
The Council of State establishes the right for a public purchaser to terminate an irregular contract
Dans cet arrêt, le Conseil d’Etat précise les conditions dans lesquelles un acheteur public peut résilier unilatéralement un contrat entaché d’irrégularité ainsi que les modalités d’indemnisation du cocontractant.
Le cabinet Palmier-Brault-Associés est très honoré d’être à l’origine de cette avancée jurisprudentielle !
What you must remember :
Point n°1 : La consécration textuelle du pourvoir de résiliation unilatérale pour motif d’intérêt général
Dans son arrêt du 10 juillet 2020, le Conseil d’Etat rappelle tout d’abord le principe jurisprudentiel selon lequel en vertu des règles générales applicables aux contrats administratifs, la personne publique cocontractante peut toujours, pour un motif d'intérêt général, résilier unilatéralement un tel contrat, sous réserve des droits à indemnité de son cocontractant (CE 2 mai1985, Distillerie de Magnac-Laval, Lebon,p.246).
In its judgment of June 10, 2020, Sté BONAUD, the Council of State recalls that in application of article 13.4.2 of CCAG-TX, the holder of a public works contract can seize the administrative judge including via a provisional interim payment if, 30 days after the notification of the formal notice to the public purchaser for the establishment of the market statement, the latter still has not produced this account being then specified that the production of said counting during the proceedings does not make the request lose its object
Interest in contesting the validity of a contract by the regional council of the order of architects
The National Council of Architects and the Regional Council of the Order of Architects have standing to contest the validity of a contract entered into in violation of Law No. 77-2 of the Law of January 3, 1977 on architecture. On the other hand, they have no quality to contest the reasons retained by a public buyer to legally resort to a design-build contract.
The bottom line: The publication of an award notice which mentions both the conclusion of the contract and the terms of its consultation makes it possible to start the period for appealing against the contract, regardless of whether it is does not indicate the date of conclusion of the contract.
When a local taxpayer disputes the validity of a contract, it is his responsibility to establish that the agreement or the clauses whose validity he disputes are likely to have significant consequences on the finances or the heritage of the community. The Council of State also specifies the possibility of claiming the cancellation of an already terminated contract.
In this case, the Council of State recalls that when a public contract is terminated before the advance can be reimbursed by withholding tax on the services due, the public buyer can obtain the reimbursement of the advance paid to the contractor or its subcontractor subject to the expenses they have incurred and which correspond to services provided on the market and actually carried out. And when the subcontractor is obliged to reimburse the advance due to a fault on the part of the holder, he may incur his liability up to the costs incurred for the performance of the services envisaged.
In this case, the Council of State provides useful details on the extent of the right to compensation of an ousted candidate when the irregularity affects the very choice of the procedure for awarding a contract launched by the public purchaser , as for example, in the event of irregular use of the competitive dialogue procedure for the award of a public contract or, as in the present case, in the award of a contract according to the procedure of delegation of public service to place of a public procurement procedure.
In this case, the Council of State recalls on the one hand that the reception puts an end to the contractual relations between the project owner and the project manager as regards the services inseparable from the realization of the work in number of which include design missions; on the other hand, that the absence of notification of the general statement allows the owner to call in guarantee the main contractor for the assumption of additional works.
In this case, the Council of State ruled for the first time on the procedures for contesting late payment penalties by the members of a joint group and the jurisdiction of the administrative judge to settle this type of dispute.
In this case, the Council of State rules for the first time on the right of the subcontractor to obtain the reassessment of the amount of its special act as soon as it performs additional services that the owner cannot ignore.