There are various remedies and enforcement mechanisms in the Acts.

First, suppliers may challenge the contracting authority's/entity's decision to award a contract by claiming that the procurement must be either recommenced or that the procurement may be concluded only after a certain rectification has been made. The basis for such a claim is that the contracting authority/entity has breached any of the five fundamental principles of EU law with regard to public procurement (see Section 1(c) above) or has breached any other provision in the Acts and the supplier can substantiate that it has suffered or may suffer damage because of the specific breach of the contracting authority/entity.

Second, suppliers may claim that a contract concluded between the contracting authority/entity and a supplier should be declared ineffective. The basis for such a claim may, for example, be that the contract has been concluded without prior publication of a notice by the contracting authority/entity.

Third, suppliers may claim damages from a contracting authority/entity. The basis for such a claim is that the contracting authority/entity has not complied with the provisions in the Acts and this violation has caused the supplier damage. The contracting authority/entity must in that case compensate the supplier for the damage in question. The starting point is that the supplier is entitled to full compensation for its damage including compensation for lost profit. In any case, the supplier is entitled to compensation for its incurred costs for preparing a bid and otherwise participating in the procurement, provided that the infringement of the provisions of the Acts has had a detrimental effect on the supplier's chances of being awarded the contract.

Fourth, the supervisory authority, i.e. the Swedish Competition Authority (Sw. Konkurrensverket) may claim that the contracting authority/entity must pay a special procurement fine to the state. The basis for such a claim is that:

• the general administrative court has determined by a ruling that has entered into final legal force that an agreement may remain in force, despite having been concluded in contravention of the provisions on standstill periods;
• the general administrative court has determined by a ruling that has entered into final legal force that an agreement may remain in force for overriding reasons relating to the public; or
• the contracting authority/entity has concluded an agreement with a supplier without prior publication of a contract notice.

There are no remedies available outside of the scope of the Acts. There are provisions on right to damages in the Acts, se section 8 a. above.

The administrative court in whose judicial district the contracting authority/entity is based is competent to hear disputes either where suppliers challenge a decision to award a contract or where suppliers claim that a contract concluded between the contracting authority/entity and a supplier should be declared ineffective. Such disputes will be dealt with as so-called administrative cases at the administrative court. This means that the administrative court in most cases will review the documents submitted to the court by the parties and base its judgment solely on this review, i.e. written proceedings. Normally there will be no final hearing. It is possible to appeal against the judgment rendered by the administrative court, however, leave to appeal is required before the administrative court of appeal will hear the case.

The administrative court in whose judicial district the contracting authority/entity is based is also competent to hear disputes where the Swedish Competition Authority claims that the contracting authority/entity must pay a special procurement fine to the state. The same rules as described above will apply also in this case.

The district court in whose judicial district the contracting authority/entity is based is competent to hear disputes where suppliers claim damages from a contracting authority/entity. Such disputes are dealt with as civil cases at the district court. This means, for example, that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to reimburse the prevailing party for its reasonable legal costs.

Before the district court renders its judgment, a final hearing including examination of witnesses normally takes place. It is possible to appeal against the judgment rendered by the district court, however, leave to appeal is required before the court of appeal will hear the case.

Suppliers who want to challenge a decision on the awarding of contracts, i.e. claiming that the procurement must be recommenced or that rectification has to be made, have to file an application with the competent administrative court at the latest within 10 days from the date when the contracting authority/entity has sent a notification of the award decision. However, should the contracting authority/entity send the notification of the award decision other than by electronic means, i.e. by regular mail or courier, the time limit is extended to 15 days. Note also that it is also possible to challenge the procurement procedure before the award decision, e.g. on the ground that the procurement documents are in violation with the general procurement principles.

Suppliers who want to claim that a contract concluded between the contracting authority/entity and a supplier should be declared ineffective have to file an application with the competent administrative court as a main rule at the latest within six months from the date the contract was concluded. However, if a contracting authority/entity has sent a notice of the results of the award procedure to the European Commission, the supplier must file the application with the competent administrative court before 30 days have elapsed from the European Commission publishing the notice sent by the contracting authority/entity. Further, if the contracting authority/entity has notified the candidates and the bidders in writing that the agreement has been concluded and issued a summary of the reasons thereof, the supplier must file the application with the competent administrative court before 30 days have elapsed from receiving such information.

Suppliers who want to claim damages from a contracting authority/entity have to file its application for a summons with the competent district court at the latest within one year from the date when a contract was concluded between the contracting authority/entity and a supplier or the contract was declared ineffective. If the claims for damages are made on the ground that the procurement process had to be cancelled due to circumstances attributable to the contracting authority/entity it has been suggested in literature that summons must be made within one year from the date of the decision to cancel the procurement. Should a supplier fail to file its application for a summons within the stipulated time, the right to damages is precluded.

The Swedish Competition Authority has to file its application regarding payment of a special procurement fine with the competent administrative court at the latest within six months from the date when the contracting authority's/entity's ruling on which the application is based has gained legal force. However, when no suppliers have applied for a review of the validity of an agreement within the relevant time limits, the Swedish Competition Authority has to file its application regarding payment of a special procurement fine with the competent administrative court within one year from when the agreement was made.

Besides filing an objection with the contracting authority as detailed above, a bidder only has standing to file a petition for review if he can claim (i) an interest to receive the award, (ii) a violation of his individual rights resulting from public procurement law provisions and (iii) demonstrate that as a consequence of such violation he suffered damages.

A review proceeding can be made to challenge either a procurement procedure or the validity of a contract.

A procurement procedure can be challenged on the ground that the general procurement principles not being upheld or violations to any of the provisions in the Acts. Challenges of the validity of a contract can be made on the ground that

• a contact has been concluded without prior advertisement in violation with the Acts, i.e. unlawful direct awards;
• a contract has been concluded under a framework agreement or a dynamic purchasing system in violation with the Public Procurement Act or the Utilities Procurement Act or the terms in the agreement; or
• a contract has been concluded before the end of the standstill period.

If no contract award decision has been notified, the procurement will not automatically be affected by a petition for judicial review filed with an administrative court. It is, however, possible to state the demand that the courts shall decide on an interim decision that a contract cannot be concluded before anything else is decided by the court.

If the contracting authority has notified a contract award decision, a petition for judicial review will prolong the standstill period until ten days after the administrative courts judgement. The court may, however, decide that the prolonged standstill period shall not apply, e.g. when a petition is obviously unfounded. In practice the courts seldom exercise this right. Note that the standstill period will not be automatically prolonged if the judgement is appealed, and therefor a state of demand of an interim judgment as described above is necessary to avoid a contract being concluded during the appeal process.

For a review proceeding regarding a procurement the court may decide either that the procurement procedure must be recommenced or that the procurement may be concluded only after a certain rectification has been made, e.g. an exclusion of a specific bidder. Note that the court is free which measure to order. The court will normally order to recommence the procurement when the violation refers to the competitive seeking stage, and otherwise that a rectification shall be made, e.g. when the contract award notice identifies a tenderer that should have been rightfully excluded.

The only measure available for a court in a review proceeding regarding the validity of a concluded is to declare the contract void. It is not possible to order recommencement or rectification of the procurement.

Public procurement cases are prioritized at the administrative courts. It has been proposed in state investigations that the process in the first instance shall take no more than 90 days, but such limits has not yet been introduced in the law.

Statistics from the Swedish Competition authority (Sw. Konkurrensverket) and The National Agency for Public Procurement (Sw. Upphandlingsmyndigheten) from 2015 shows that on average the turnaround time in the first instance was 2.3 months. However, we have experienced cases where it took almost ten months between the referral to the court to a judgment from the first instance. Furthermore, the statistics shows that in average the turnaround time for appeals in the administrative courts of appeals is 5.3 months (total turnaround 7.6 months) and an additional 3.7 months for appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court (total turnaround 11.3 months).

The contracting authority/entity must send out a notification of award of contract before a valid contract can be concluded. There are no specific timelines for when such a notice must be sent out. The notification triggers the standstill period under which contracts cannot be concluded.

Yes. Sweden has the highest quota of review proceedings per procurement in the EU. A total of 18.435 procurement notices was published in accordance with procurement regulations in 2015 of which 1 374 (7.5 percent) where subject to review proceedings in courts.

Claims for damages from public procurement are relatively unusual. The Supreme Court delivered two noticeable judgments in 2016 (NJA 2016 s. 358 and NJA 2016 s. 369) that in effect softened the conditions to claim damages caused by cancelled procurements. It is likely that the new jurisprudence will result in more damage claims. m. What are the leading court decisions involving procurement disputes?

The Supreme Administrative Court has in the last years taken a more active approach to public procurement.

The most noticeable judgments in recent years was HFD 2016 ref. 37 I and II that has had a big impact on courts assessments in lower instances. In short, the Supreme Administrative Court found that a contracting authority acted correctly when it rejected a tender which did not fulfill a mandatory requirement (I) and incorrectly when the authority accepted a tender with a view to such a requirement (II). Furthermore, the court stated that when a contracting authority has concluded that a specific requirement must be mandatory to fulfil, potential suppliers must be able to assume that the requirement is so important that those who consider themselves unable or unwilling to fulfill the requirement refrains from submitting a tender.

In a ruling from 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that negotiations conducted in a manner that directly or indirectly has been able to provide information on competing bids is contrary to the principle of equal treatment (HFD 2015 ref. 63).

Other noticeable cases from the Supreme Administrative courts regards abnormally low tenders (HFD 2016 ref. 3), directly or indirectly disclosing information from a bid to another bidder during negotiation procedures (HFD 2015 ref. 63), obligations in some cases for courts to retrieve confidential information in submitted tenders necessary to ensure an efficient review in a judicial proceeding (HFD 2015 ref. 55) and changes in a contract awarded by public procurement (HFD 2016 ref 85).

The Supreme Court also delivered two judgments that in effect softened the conditions to claim damages caused by cancelled procurements, (NJA 2016 s. 358 and NJA 2016 s. 369).