TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

11

Državna revizijska komisija je poseben, neodvisen in samostojen državni organ. V revizijskem postopku odloča o zakonitosti oddaje javnih naročil, pri čemer hkrati zaseda dva vprašljivo združljiva položaja: je sodišče oziroma tribunal po 267. členu Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in hkrati nekakšen nadzorni organ, ki o zakonitosti postopkov javnih naročil odloča neoblastno. Oba položaja je opredelila sodna praksa – prvega odločitev Sodišča Evropske unije, drugega ustaljena sodna praksa domačih sodišč. Stališče, po katerem je isti organ sodišče oziroma tribunal v smislu prava EU in hkrati organ, ki sploh ne izdaja odločb, ampak akte poslovanja, zato sodni nadzor ni niti potreben niti nujen, z vidika pravne varnosti ne more biti zaželeno. Novela C Zakona o pravnem varstvu v postopkih javnega naročanja uvaja pravno varstvo (ZPVPJN), ki pritiče odločitvam Državne revizijske komisije, kadar kot državni organ ex iure imperii odloča o pravicah in pravnih koristih vlagatelja revizijskega zahtevka. Uvedba (sicer omejenega) upravnega spora priča o prepoznani potrebi po širšem sodnem nadzoru, vendar pregled pristojnosti upravnega sodišča v postopku upravnega spora po ZPVPJN pokaže, da končna rešitev učinkovitega sodnega varstva ne zagotavlja v zadostni meri.

The National Review Commission is a distinct, independent, and autonomous state body occupying two seemingly incompatible roles: it functions as a court or tribunal under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, while also acting as a mere supervisory body within the Slovenian legal order. Case-law have delineated these dual roles, firstly through the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and secondly via the settled case-law of domestic courts. From this perspective, the necessity for judicial oversight is neither imperative nor mandated. In terms of legal certainty, such a scenario is less than ideal. Amendment C of the Legal Protection in Public Procurement Procedures Act introduces a form of judicial oversight that is commensurate with the remit of the National Review Commission. This applies particularly when the Commission, as a state authority exercising its legal powers (ex iure imperii), adjudicates on the rights and legal interests of revision applicants. The introduction of (limited) administrative dispute demonstrates the recognized need for judicial oversight. However, a review of the jurisdiction of the administrative court in administrative dispute proceedings under the Legal Protection in Public Procurement Procedures Act, reveals that the ultimate solution does not adequately ensure effective judicial protection.

The Legal Position of the National Review Commission: Why is the Judicial Protection Against its Decisions Being Limited?