WORLD TRADE GPA/32 12 January 2000 ORGANIZATION (00-0109) Committee on Government Procurement Original: English/ French REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION European Community The present document reproduces the questions put to the delegation of the European Community and the responses given and comments made during the review of national implementing legislation at the Committee's meetings of 7 October 1998 and 5 October 1999. 1 The European Community's notification of its national implementing legislation in accordance with the Committee's Decision in GPA/1/Add.1 has been circulated in document GPA/20, dated 28 January 1998. _______________ REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS FROM KOREA AND THE UNITED STATES I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION BY THE MEMBER STATES Question from Korea 1. Korea thinks that at the EC level, legislation on public procurement is generally in conformity with the rules of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. However, Korea has concerns about the implementation of that legislation by EC member States. The important aspect is not EC legislation per se but rather its full compliance by member States. According to "Single Market Scoreboard", which is issued by the EC Commission every six months to assess the degree of implementation of Directives for the single market, government procurement was reported to be the most poorly implemented area (only 55 per cent of the Directives are implemented by member States). Furthermore, as far as Korea knows, infringement procedures were initiated this year by the EC Commission against Greece, Spain and Italy due to their non-implementation of EC Directives. Regarding these concerns, Korea would appreciate knowing what actions the EC is, and will be taking, to better comply with the GPA. Through the decision of the Council of the European Communities of December 1994, ratifying the entire Uruguay Round package, the GPA has become a part of the domestic law of the European Community, in its entirety, from 1 January 1996, and is fully in force within the Community from that date. The EC Directives, which were the internal legislation of the European Community at the time of entry into force of the GPA was, to a large extent, in line with the GPA. The limited number of areas where this legislation was not entirely in line with the GPA related to the issues of threshold, the statistical reporting requirements and a very limited number of other issues. 1 The minutes of these meetings have been circulated in documents GPA/M/10 and 12. GPA/32 Page 2 These areas were subsequently brought in line with the requirements in the GPA through two Directives which were adopted on 10 October 1996. The Community acts in the procurement area through Directives which the relationship between deal with the suppliers and purchasers within the Community, giving suppliers certain rights and creating obligations for purchasers. The EC Directives do not deal directly with the relationship between suppliers from the GPA Parties (other than the EU member States ) and purchasers within EU. With regard to the issue of whether domestic legislation of EC member States are in conformity with the requirements of the GPA on national treatment, relationship between the suppliers in GPA Parties members and purchasers within the Community is fully governed by the GPA which in its entirety has been made part of the EU Law since December 1994. In the context of GPA rules, it is important to ensure that non-European Community suppliers are governed by exactly the same procurement regime as suppliers from the Community. Any problems with the implementation of the Directives relates to relationship between the Community suppliers and purchasers and does not mean that any rights arising from the GPA for suppliers in the GPA countries, other than EU, has been affected in any way. The Commission and the member States consider it important that the Directives should be fully and correctly implemented within the deadlines laid down. Any problems with the implementation of the EC Directives does not affect the obligations of the member States under the GPA. The reference to 55 per cent of the Directives in the Korean question relates to the cases in which the member States have not adopted all measures necessary to implement those Directives as far as they relate to purchases by EC contracting entities of products, services and works supplied by suppliers from the Community and is, therefore, outside the GPA context. The European Commission, as the institution charged with the enforcement of the rules within the EC is fully committed to the implementation of the Single Market legislation. An Action Plan for the Single Market was approved by the Commission in 1997. One of its targets is to ensure that rules are effectively applied. Under this plan, each member State will be called upon to submit its detailed timetable and to demonstrate political commitment to eliminate urgently all delays in transposition. The Single Market Scoreboard, issued by the Commission every six months, is used to keep track of the progress in the implementation of the Directives for Single Market. Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to pursue infringement procedures vigorously and swiftly against member States which fail in these obligations, using sanctions against them where necessary. In addition, as far as public procurement is specifically concerned, the Commission has approved this year a Communication on its future policy in this field in which a specific subchapter on improving the implementation of public procurement policy was included. The text of the Communication is available in the SIMAP website (http://simap.eu.int). II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EC UTILITIES DIRECTIVE 93/38 Question from the United States 2. Section I.1(i), Section I.1(iii) and Section IV.2(6) of the EC Notification of National Implementing Legislation make reference to the EC Utilities Directive 93/38. Section IV.2(6) refers specifically to Article 36 of the Utilities Directive. Is Article 36 of the Utilities Directive currently being implemented and enforced by Greece, Portugal and Spain? Directive 93/38 is applicable in its entirety in Spain as from 1 January 1997 and Directive 93/38 is applicable in its entirety in Greece and Portugal as from 1 January 1998 (Cfr. Article 45 §2 of Directive 93/38). GPA/32 Page 3 The preference granted to EC member States under Article 36 of the Utilities Directive continues to apply to the purchases not covered by the GPA. III. PRIOR INFORMATION NOTICE Question from the United States 3. The EC response in Section IV.2(11) of GPA/20 on "Time Limits for Tendering and Delivery" indicates that deadlines for receipt of tenders can be reduced in instances where a "prior information notice" has been published. Please describe what information is required to be included in a prior information notice, and whether a prior information notice is equivalent to a "pre-information notice" as described in Section IV.2(8). The information to be included in the "prior information notices" is specified in Annexes IV of Directive 93/36, IV of Directive 93/37, III of Directive 92/50 and XIV of Directive 93/38. The information required is: - Name, address, etc. of the contracting authority, and, if different, of the service from which additional information may be obtained. - Nature and quantity or value of the procurement. This information depends on whether the procurement concerns goods, services or works. - Estimated date for initiating the award procedures. - Other information (including for instance terms of financing of the works in the case of construction services). - Date of dispatch of the notice. - Date of receipt of the notices by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. - Indication whether the procurement is covered by the GPA. "Prior Information Notices" (also known as PINs) are also referred to as "indicative notices" in the directives. In document GPA/20, the expression "pre-information notice" used in Section IV.2.(8), though not technically accurate, is used as a synonym of "Prior Information Notice". IV. FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTS Question from the United States 4. Section IV.2(10) states that Annex 3 entities are permitted to choose between open and restricted procedures without a call for competition, "for contracts to be awarded on the basis of a framework agreement ...". Please provide details on the legal definition of a "framework agreement" as well as information regarding when such agreements are permitted to be used and how they operate. Framework agreements in the European Community legislation are specifically dealt with only in the Utilities Directive, that is only for Appendix 3 entities. It is not mentioned at all in the Directive relating to public entities that is Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 entities. GPA/32 Page 4 According to Directive 93/38, the Utilities Directive, "framework agreement" shall mean an agreement between one of the contracting entities and one or more suppliers, contractors or service providers the purpose of which is to establish the terms, in particular with regard to the prices and, where appropriate, the quantity envisaged, governing the contracts to be awarded during a given period. Annex 3 entities may regard a framework agreement as a contract and award it in accordance with Directive 93/38: i.e. using the open, restricted or negotiated (with publication) procedure, as appropriate. When contracting entities have awarded a framework agreement in accordance with Directive 93/38, a call for competition is not compulsory when awarding contracts based on that agreement. According to Article 5 of Directive 93/38, contracting entities may not misuse framework agreements in order to hinder, limit or distort competition. V. ENFORCEMENT Question from the United States 5. Please provide details on infringement actions currently undertaken by the European Commission against member States for violations of EC procurement laws outlined in GPA/20. Please also explain the impact of EC member State infringement of Community law in the field of procurement or national rules implementing that law on the EC’s international obligations under the WTO GPA. Details of the infringement procedures undertaken by the European Commission against member States are not considered to be public, unless cases are brought before the European Court of Justice. However, the spokesman's service of the European Commission regularly issues press releases concerning public procurement infringements at earlier stages of the procedure. These press releases are publicly available and can be accessed through the RAPID database via the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int). As for the impact of member State infringement of Community Law, it must be recalled that Article 189 of the EC Treaty provides that the form of Community legislation known as the "directive" is binding as to the result to be achieved but leaves the national authorities the choice of form and methods. Member States are therefore under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to make sure that the provisions of the directive are complied with. These measures have to be taken within the deadlines laid down. It can happen that a member State fails to take all necessary measures to implement the directive by the date laid down, and it might be thought that the directive would then be inapplicable. But the same Article 189 provides the basis for what is known as "direct effect". The Court of Justice has interpreted Article 189 to mean that "when the conditions under which the Court has held that individuals may rely on the provisions of a directive before the national courts are met, all organs of the administration, including decentralized authorities such as municipalities, are obliged to apply those provisions" (ECJ, case Costanzo). The impact of this judgment is not confined to the application of a provision in a particular directive; it also establishes the principle that national measures may not prevent the application of a provision in a particular directive if it can be applied directly. GPA/32 Page 5 The Commission has powers to ensure the full compliance with the directives includes the power to bring a member State before the Court of Justice. The same power exists when infringement of the obligations of the GPA is committed by any of the contracting entities covered under the GPA in any of the member States. An infringement of the obligations under the Directives would relate to the relationship between Community suppliers and entities and not to the relationship between the suppliers from the GPA countries and Community entities. As regards the Remedies Directive, if and when bid challenge rights are not granted in EU legislation because the Remedies Directive may not have been entirely implemented by a member State, there is a safety net in the community referred to as the "Francovitch Case Law" which provides suppliers from the GPA Parties other than those from the EC member States, with the possibility of taking a matter up in the European Court of Justice and having rapid and effective remedies available as required by the GPA would be able to use the safety net provided by the Frankovitch Case Law. The "Francovitch" case the Court accepted the principle that a member State must make good damage suffered by individuals as a result of an infringement of Community law, e.g. through its failure to transpose a directive into national law or to transpose it properly. This has been further developed in the "Brasserie du Pêcheur" case. Thus, this safety net allows any supplier from any GPA country with the possibility to go to court and to have rapid and effective remedies available to it, as required in the GPA Agreement, therefore, a non-implementation of the Remedies Directive by a member State does not effect the right of GPA suppliers as they will be able to use the safety net provided by the "Francovitch Case Law". Question from the United States 6. Section IV.3 of GPA/20 states that member States are authorized to choose between two "options" relating to the power of review bodies. Please describe what rapid interim measures, as required by GPA Article XX:7(a), are provided for in the second option, "indirect pressure". As stated in Section IV.3 of GPA/20 such "two options" possibility only concerns the legal regime applicable to Annex 3 entities (contracting entities subject to Directive 93/38). At the time when Directive 92/13 (the so-called Remedies Utilities Directive) was enacted, it was felt necessary to take account of the specific nature of certain legal orders in the EC by authorizing the member States to choose between the introduction of different powers for the review bodies which have equivalent effects. It is to be noted that claims for damages are always possible. One of the options includes the power to intervene directly in the contracting entities' procurement procedures such as by suspending them or by setting aside decisions or discriminatory clauses in documents or publications. Thus, this option is based on traditional litigation. However, in some legal orders, review bodies cannot, because of the legal nature of the some contracting entities, annul or suspend award decisions made by this kind of entities. This is why there is a second option, referred to in this question, which provide for the power to exert effective indirect pressure on the contracting entities in order to make them correct any infringements or prevent them from committing infringements, and to prevent injury from occurring. The kind of measures adopted are generally making orders for the payment of a particular sum, unless the infringement is corrected or prevented. This sum must be set at a level high enough to dissuade the contracting entity from committing or persisting in an infringements. These measures are to be taken at the earliest opportunity, if possible by way of interlocutory procedures and if necessary by a final procedure on the substance. The distinction between the two options concerns the powers exerted by the review bodies rather than the actual procedure used. In both cases, there is a provision ensuring that measures are taken at the earliest opportunity. GPA/32 Page 6 One option is a judicial and the other is administrative procedure. In choosing either option the member State has to satisfy the over all conditions in terms of rapidity and having adequate remedies, in line with the GPA procedures. The requirements in Article XX of GPA are more broadly worded than that in the Remedies Directive. It was decided to be more specific than the terms laid down in Article XX. Under both options there are sufficient guarantees that the remedies are offered rapidly and that they cover all the requirements of Article XX of GPA. Question from the United States 7. Section IV.3(13)(ii) describes EC review procedures. Please provide information concerning the length of time it ordinarily takes for the completion of Commission infringement determinations, decisions to be rendered by the European Court of Justice, and for member State compliance with these decisions and determinations. The length of time will depend on the of the complexity and the nature of the case in question. Formal procedure start by the Commission sending out a "letter of formal notice" to the member State in question. In general, member States have two months to present their considerations unless the urgency requires faster responses. Then the Commission can send a "reasoned opinion" in which it states why the member State in question has infringed Community Law and requests that appropriate measures are taken to correct the situation. If the member State does not comply with this "reasoned opinion" within the period stated (usually two months), the Commission may submit the case to the European Court of Justice. However, if the case justifies a more rapid intervention, time-limits are shortened. The procedure before the European Court of Justice may last between one year and a half and two years, on average. But again, procedures can be quicker if there is a justified reason. Commission may (and normally does) ask for interim measures when this is needed. Almost all cases are settled before reaching the Court of Justice, and most of them are settled even before the "reasoned opinion" is delivered, so length is variable and can be substantially more reduced than the figures above may suggest. The Commission has the powers to overview the way in which the member States comply with their obligations under the EC laws. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there is a violation either, on its own initiative or on the basis of a formal, informal or anonymous complaint. This may involve the violation of the Community laws implementing Community's international obligations per se. In that event, the Commission can start a procedure which in the final instance may lead to a Court of Justice decision. The actual cases which go for a decision of the Court decision are very few. In fact only one or two cases are decided by the Court of Justice, per year. In the majority of cases the complaints are resolved before reaching that stage. GPA/32 Page 7 V. QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO MEMBER STATES A. AUSTRIA Question from the United States (Section IV.3.A of GPA/20) 8. The response to question 14(i) of the Checklist in GPA/20 notes that after potential disputes become known, complaints must be filed with the Control Commission expeditiously. Would a complaint filed within ten days after a potential dispute became known generally be considered to have been filed expeditiously? The Austrian Bundesvergabegesetz (Federal Law on Public Procurement) determines no official time-limits for filing complaints. However, a complaint filed within ten days after a potential dispute became known would be considered to have been filed expeditiously. B. GERMANY Question from the United States (Section IV.3.D of GPA/20) 9. Please provide additional information regarding Germany’s amended legal framework for public procurement. Specifically, please provide information outlining the differences between the existing legal framework and the amended framework, and detailing the provisions of the amended framework which ensure fair and open competition to bidders. The rules on public procurement have been incorporated into the Law against Restraint of Competition (GWB) by insertion of a new 4th part of the Law, see BdGBl. 1998 Teil I, 2568, Nr. 59 dated 2 September 1988. The basic principles of public procurement (competition, transparency and non-discrimination) have been summarised in § 97 GWB. Admissible requirements not related to the public procurement – like environmentally advantageous producing methods, special social goals, affirmative action - have been restricted; they can be imposed on the bidders only where there is a legal basis for doing so. § 97 GWB spells out that the bidder is entitled to rely on the contracting entity observing the public procurement procedure. An effective judicial review has been introduced and laid down in a comprehensive way, §§ 102 – 124 GWB. A newly created "Vergabekammer" (first instance for public procurement reviews) reviews public procurement procedures upon request. Upon appeal the Court of Appeal can review decisions of the first instance. The launching of a review procedure automatically triggers an interruption of the awarding procedure according to the new rules. The action for damages brought by either a bidder or a contracting entity has been laid down in the law, §§ 125 – 126 GWB. C. SPAIN Question from the United States (Section IV.3.E of GPA/20) 10. Please provide clarification to the response under Section 13, particularly with regard to the reference to "[t]he notification of the agreements". The "Notification of the agreements" should be understood as the notification of the results of the tender. Under Spanish administrative law, public authorities have the obligation not only to notify bidders of the result of each tender but also to inform them of the legal remedies and procedures at their disposal in case they wish to challenge the result of the tender. GPA/32 Page 8 D. GREECE Question from the United States (Section IV.3.EL of GPA/20) 11. Does the response to question 14(vi) indicate that, under the new law, a complainant will have five days to launch a complaint after having learned of a contested act by an awarding authority? We should distinguish between: (a) proceedings for interim relief; and (b) the main action. The time-limits imposed by the new legislation relate mainly to interim relief proceedings. Thus, a plaintiff is obliged to submit an "administrative redress petition" with the awarding authority within five days after having learned of the contested act. If the petition is rejected, the plaintiff will be entitled to seek interim relief by an order of the competent court. The submission should be made within ten days from the rejection of the petition. The law provides however that in cases an interim relief order is granted, the plaintiff will have to initiate proceedings on the main action within 30 days from the order; failure to do so will automatically make the interim relief order void. On the other hand, as regards the main action (e.g., action for the annulment of an administrative act, etc.) the normal time-limits continue to apply. For example, the time-limit for the introduction of an action for the annulment of a administrative act, will generally be of 60 days. E. FRANCE Question from the United States (Section IV.3.F of GPA/20) 12. Do the documents referred to in question 14 respond to questions 14(i) through 14(vii); if so, are the documents available for GPA Party review? The documents referred to are reproduced in the attachment2 to this paper. F. IRELAND Question from the United States (Section IV.3.IRL of GPA/20) 13. Are there any time-limits to launching complaints, as mentioned in question 14(i)? The EU Remedies directives are transposed directly into Irish Law by Statutory Instruments. There is no time-limit to launching complaints in the Directives; similarly there is no time-limit in Irish law. 2 French only GPA/32 Page 9 G. PORTUGAL Question from the United States (Section IV.3.P of GPA/20) 14. As mentioned in the response to question 14(i), what is the difference between a hierarchical remedy with respect to the discussion of a claim, to which a five-day time-limit would apply, and a hierarchical remedy challenging the legality of administrative acts, to which a 30-day time-limit is applied? The question refers to two different situations: an administrative claim ("reclamação") and a judicial claim ("recurso contencioso"). In the first case, suppliers have a five-day delay to ask the contracting entity to revoke its award decision. If the decision is not revoked, the plaintiff has then a 30-day delay to introduce a law suit before the competent court ("Tribunal Administrativo"). GPA/32 Page 10 ATTACHMENT National Legislation of France 1. Code des Tribunaux Administratifs et Cours Administratives D'Appel Article L.22 Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut être saisi en cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des marchés publics et des conventions de délégation de service public. Les personnes habilitées à agir sont celles qui ont un intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui sont susceptibles d'être lésées par ce manquement, ainsi que le représentant de l'Etat dans le département dans le cas où le contrat est conclu ou doit être conclu par une collectivité territoriale ou un établissement public local. Le président du tribunal admnistratif peut être saisi avant la conclusion du contrat. Il peut ordonner à l'auteur du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations et suspendre la passation du contrat ou l'éxécution de toute décision qui s'y rapporte. Il peut également annuler ces décisions et supprimer les clauses ou prescriptions destinées à figurer dans le contrat et qui méconnaissaient lesdites obligations. Sauf si la demande porte sur des marchés ou contrats passés par l'Etat, elle peut également être présentée par celui-ci lorsque la Commission des Communautés européennes lui a notifié les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence d'origine communautaire ou résultant de l'accord sur l'Espace économique européen a été commise. Le président du tribunal administratif ou son délégué statue en premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés. Article L.23 Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut être saisi en cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité ou de mise en concurrence auxquelles sont soumis les contrats visés à l'article 7-2 de la loi nº 92-1282 du 11 décembre 1992 relative aux procédures de passation de certains contrats dans les secteurs de l'eau, de l'énergie, des transports et des télécommunications. Le juge ne peut statuer, avant la conclusion du contrat, que dans les conditions définies ci-après. Les personnes habilitées à agir sont celles qui ont un intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui sont susceptibles d'être lésées par ce manquement. Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, peut ordonner à l'auteur du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations. Il détermine les délais dans lesquels l'auteur du manquement doit s'éxécuter. Il peut aussi prononcer une astreinte provisoire courant à l'expiration des délais impartis. Il peut toutefois prendre en considération les conséquences probables de cette dernière mesure pour tous les intérêts susceptibles d'être atteints, notamment l'intérêt public, et décider de ne pas l'accorder lorsque ses conséquences négatives pourraient dépasser ses avantages. Le montant de l'astreinte provisoire est liquidé en tenant compte du comportement de celui à qui l'injonction a été adressée et des difficultés qu'il a rencontrées pour l'éxécuter. Sauf si la demande porte sur des marchés ou contrats passés par l'Etat, elle peut également être présentée par celui-ci lorsque la Commission des communautés européennes lui a notifié les GPA/32 Page 11 raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées cidessus a été commise. Le président du tribunal administratif, ou son délégué, statue en premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés. Si, à la liquidation de l'astreinte provisoire, le manquement constaté n'a pas été corrigé le juge peut prononcer une astreinte définitive. Dans ce cas, il statue en la forme des référés, appel pouvant être fait comme en matière de référé. L'astreinte, qu'elle soit provisoire ou définitive, est indépendante des dommages-intérêts. L'astreinte provisoire ou définitive est supprimée en tout ou partie s'il est établi que l'inéxécution ou le retard dans l'éxécution de l'injonction du juge provient, en tout ou partie, d'une cause étrangère. Article R.241-21 Toute personne habilitée à introduire un recours dans les conditions prévues par l'article L.22 doit, si elle entend engager une telle action, demander préalablement à la personne morale tenue aux obligaitons de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des contrats et marchés mentionnés audit article de s'y conformer. En cas de refus ou d'absence de réponse dans un délai de dix jours, l'auteur de la demande peut saisir le président du tribunal administratif ou son délégué, qui statue dans un délai de vingt jours. Article R.241-22 L'article R.241-21 est applicable au représentant de l'Etat mentionné à l'article R.241-23. Article R.241-23 Dans le cas prévu au quatrième alinéa de l'article L.22, l'Etat est représenté par le ministre de tutelle lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par un établissement public de l'Etat ayant un caractère autre qu'industriel et commercial ou par le préfet lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par une collectivité territoriale ou un établissement public local ayant un caractère autre qu'industriel et commercial. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un contrat passé par une personne morale de droit privé pour le compte de l'Etat, d'une collectivité territoriale ou un établissement public local ayant un caractère autre qu'industriel et commercial et relevant de l'Etat ou d'une collectivité territoriale, l'Etat est représenté, selon le cas, par le ministre ou le préfet intéressé. Article R.241.24 La décision du président du tribunal administratif ou de son délégué, qui est exécutoire par provision, est susceptible de recours en cassation devant le Conseil d'Etat, dans la quinzaine de sa notification. GPA/32 Page 12 1. LOI n° 91-3 du 3 Janvier 1991 Modifée (relative à la transparence et la régularité des procédures de marchés et soumettant la passation de certains contrats à des règles de publicité et de mise en concurrence) Article 11-1 En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des contrats définis aux articles 9, 9-1, 10 aux I, II, III, et IV de l'article 10-1 et à l'article 11 et relevant du droit privé, toute personne ayant intérêt à conclure le contrat et susceptible d'être lésée par ce manquement peut demander au juge de prendre, avant la conclusion du contrat, des mesures provisoires tendant à ce qu'il soit ordonné à la personne morale responsable du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations et, le cas échéant, à ce que soit suspendue la procédure de passation du contrat ou l'exécution de toute décision qui s'y rapporte. Elle peut également demander que soient annulées de telles décisions et que soient supprimées les clauses ou prescriptions destinées à figurer dans le contrat et qui méconnaissent lesdites obligations. La demande peut également être présentée par le ministère public lorsque la Commission des Communautés européennes a notifié à l'Etat les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées au premier alinéa a été commise. La demande est portée devant le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou son délégué, qui statue en premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés. 2. LOI n° 92-1282 du 11 Décembre 1992 (modifiée par la loi nº 93-1416 du 29 décembre 1993 et par la loi nº 97-50 du 22 janvier 1997) Article 7-1 En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des contrats définis à l'article 1er et relevant du droit privé, le juge ne peut statuer, avant la conclusion du contrat, que dans les conditions définies ci-après. Sur demande de toute personne ayant intérêt à conclure le contrat et susceptible d'être lésée par un manquement, le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou son délégué peut ordonner à l'auteur du manquement de se conformer à ses obligations. Il détermine les délais dans lesquels l'auteur du manquement doit s'exécuter. Il peut aussi prononcer une astreinte provisoire courant à compter de l'expiration des délais impartis. Il peut toutefois prendre en considération les conséquences probables de cette dernière mesure pour tous les intérêts susceptibles d'être atteints, notamment l'intérêt public, et décider de ne pas l'accorder lorsque ses conséquences négatives pourraient dépasser ses avantages. La demande peut également être présentée par le ministère public lorsque la Commission des communautés européennes a notifié à l'Etat les raisons pour lesquelles elle estime qu'une violation claire et manifeste des obligations mentionnées au premier alinéa a été commise. Le montant de l'astreinte provisoire est liquidé en tenant compte du comportement de celui à qui l'injonction a été adressée et des difficultés qu'il a rencontrées pour l'exécuter. Le président de la juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire compétente ou son délégué statue en premier et dernier ressort en la forme des référés. Si, à la liquidation de l'astreinte provisoire, le manquement constaté n'a pas été corrigé, le juge peut prononcer une astreinte définitive. Dans ce cas, il statue en la forme des référés, appel pouvant être fait comme en matière de référé. GPA/32 Page 13 L'astreinte, qu'elle soit provisoire ou définitive, est indépendante des dommages-intérêts. L'astreinte provisoire ou définitive est supprimée en tout ou partie s'il est établi que l'inexécution ou le retard dans l'exécution de l'injonction du juge provient, en tout ou partie, d'une cause étrangère. Article 7-2 En cas de manquement aux obligations de publicité et de mise en concurrence auxquelles est soumise la passation des contrats définis à l'article 1er et relevant du droit public, toute personne qui a intérêt à conclure le contrat et qui est susceptible d'être lésée par ce manquement peut demander au juge de prendre, avant la conclusion du contrat, les mesures prévues à l'article L.23 du code des tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel. __________