What could be the consequences of the decision made?
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 3:44 am
Thus, Law No. 114-IX, to which the Grand Chamber referred, amended Article 29 of the Procurement Law, which provided effective tools and mechanisms to counter the unfair behavior of buyers in offering a price for goods that is lower than the market price in order to win the auction.
Thus, the Grand Chamber's references to the fact that "otherwise the goal of Law No. 922-VIII, which is to ensure effective and transparent procurement, create a competitive environment in the field of public procurement, prevent corruption in this area and develop fair competition, is not achieved, since sellers, in order to win, may offer a price for goods that is lower than the special database market price during the procurement procedure, and subsequently, after concluding a procurement contract, demand an increase in this price, citing fluctuations in the price of such goods on the market." are unfounded, since the Law provides for a clear and effective mechanism for preventing such abuses and the interpretation of the norm of paragraph 2 of part five of Article 41 of Law No. 922-VIII in no way affects such a possibility.
However, without going into the possibility of the Grand Chamber to refer to explanatory notes to draft laws, it is noteworthy that the Court, in an attempt to further substantiate its position on the interpretation of the disputed norm, actually took out of context the authors of the draft law's reference to "price dumping", which they did not refer to as the need to include in the Procurement Law a condition stating that a price change in the upward direction cannot occur more than once every 90 days, except for the purchase of gasoline, diesel fuel, gas, and electricity.
Of course, this approach to interpreting a norm, the application of which is critical for the execution of thousands of contracts every day, causes, at the very least, surprise and misunderstanding.
Thus, the Grand Chamber's references to the fact that "otherwise the goal of Law No. 922-VIII, which is to ensure effective and transparent procurement, create a competitive environment in the field of public procurement, prevent corruption in this area and develop fair competition, is not achieved, since sellers, in order to win, may offer a price for goods that is lower than the special database market price during the procurement procedure, and subsequently, after concluding a procurement contract, demand an increase in this price, citing fluctuations in the price of such goods on the market." are unfounded, since the Law provides for a clear and effective mechanism for preventing such abuses and the interpretation of the norm of paragraph 2 of part five of Article 41 of Law No. 922-VIII in no way affects such a possibility.
However, without going into the possibility of the Grand Chamber to refer to explanatory notes to draft laws, it is noteworthy that the Court, in an attempt to further substantiate its position on the interpretation of the disputed norm, actually took out of context the authors of the draft law's reference to "price dumping", which they did not refer to as the need to include in the Procurement Law a condition stating that a price change in the upward direction cannot occur more than once every 90 days, except for the purchase of gasoline, diesel fuel, gas, and electricity.
Of course, this approach to interpreting a norm, the application of which is critical for the execution of thousands of contracts every day, causes, at the very least, surprise and misunderstanding.