EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

7. Conclusion The analysis of the legal provisions contained in the European Commission’s communication and the provisions of three European countries – Poland, Italy, and Spain, indicate their full compliance with Directive 2014/24 / EU. The epidemic caused by the COVID -19 virus did not change the EU concept of the public procurement law system. The detailed solutions already provided for in the above-mentioned Directive were applied. However, there was a tendency to some flexibility, depending on the existing circumstances caused by an increase in the infection curve. This possibility has already been foreseen in the European Commission communication. It is obvious that the analyzed solutions had a significant impact on limiting the freedom of movement of capital, services, and people within the territory of the European Union. It was undoubtedly connected with the spreading pandemic and the necessity to take the necessary measures to protect the life and health of citizens. These solutions also had a negative impact on the principles of free competition on the European market. The scale of the pandemic was a sufficient reason to introduce the above restrictions. In conclusion, it should be stated that the temporary restrictions and limitations in the application of public procurement regulations have not led to significant changes in the public procurement system of the European Union or in the individual Member States. Therefore, the provisions of Directive 2014/24 / EU of 26 February 2014 remain in force. References [1] Zaborowski, M. (2019). Cel i funkcje zamówień publicznych. Optium. Economic Studies, nr. 3(97), pp. 151–163. [2] Sadowy, J. (ed.). (2011). Kryteria oceny ofert w postępowaniu o udzielenie zam ówienia publicznego – przykłady i zastosowanie, Warszawa: Urząd Zamówień Pub licznych. [3] Farca, L.A., and Dacian D. (2020). Resilience in Times Of Pandemic: Is the Public Procurement Legal Framework Fit for Purpose? Transylvanian Review of Administra tive Sciences 16, pp. 60–79. [4] Goniewicz, K. et al. (2020). Current response and management decisions of the Eu ropean Union to the COVID-19 outbreak: a review. Sustainability, No. 9 Vol. 12, p. 3838. [5] Sanchez-Graells, A. (2020). Procurement in the time of COVID-19. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 81–87. [6] Baratta, R. (2020). EU Soft Law Instruments as a Tool to Tackle the COVID-19 Crisis: Looking at the ‘Guidance’ on Public Procurement Through the Prism of Soli darity. European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration, No 1 (2020), pp. 365–373.

235