This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
However, a ‘twin’ provision can be found in Article 41 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p.
Background The dispute arose from a share purchase agreement pursuant to which Mr Ganz and Mr Goren allegedly agreed to sell their shares in a company to Petronz (“the SPA”). Petronz did not pay the purchase price and Mr Ganz referred the dispute to arbitration.
The Slovak Government decided not to purchase the stadium and it instead challenged the compatibility with EU law of the State aid package due to a fundamental breach of procurement law. Framing: Directive 2004/18/EC, Directive 2014/24/EU, or it does not matter? Once the stadium was built, NFŠ exercised the put option.
The sovereign acts doctrine attempts to balance[ ] the Governments need for freedom to legislate with its obligation to honor its contracts by asking whether the sovereign act is properly attributable to the Government as contractor. [62] Generally speaking, the Government seeking to balance the budget is laudable. 2d 151, 164 (D.
But, when balancing the pros and the cons, there is a natural expectation that contractors will accept the mandate, without challenge, so long as there is a financial upside for doing so. 19, 2004) (quoting Liles Constr. Of course, those complications are less welcome. See, e.g. , Adv. Eng’g and Planning Corp., United States , 455 F.2d
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content