Regarding questions about the acting of Republic Commission for Protection of Rights in Public Procurement Procedures upon judgments of Administrative Court no. 7 U 19888/13 and no. 16 U 10831/14, we need to point out to the following:

In the mentioned decisions, Administrative Court was deciding on procedural issues within protection of rights procedures, and more specifically the topic of the mentioned decisions is the fee that claimants need to pay upon submitting each of the requests for protection of rights. With its decisions Administrative Court took a position, which is according to Republic Commission contrary to the procedural meaning of the fee with regards to the submitted request for protection of rights.

Namely, Republic Commission is of the opinion that it is necessary to rigorously insist upon the evidence that the fee for submitting the requests for protection of rights in public procurement procedures has been paid, as in the opposite every interested person could submit the request for protection of rights without paying the fee or with falsified evidence on payment of the fee and thus suspend the public procurement procedure without taking any risk or responsibility for such behavior.

With regards to such position and different practice of Administrative Court, Republic Commission has submitted appeals to the Constitutional Court, as this is the only legal remedy it has at its disposition. One of these appeals refers to the judgment you mention, no. 7 U 19888/1, and we are awaiting the decisions upon these appeals. Please find attached the copy of the appeal.

Republic Commission has also pointed out the above mentioned position of the Administrative Court to the competent Committee for Finance, Republic Budget and Control of Public Expenditure of National Assembly in its Report on Performance for the period between January 1st 2014 and June 30th 2014, where it explained in detail the reasons for its actions and the decisions it made (Point 15 of the Report – Problems Republic Commission Faces in its Operations, pages 294 – 301). This report has been published on the web page of Republic Commission and we refer you to the link below where you can check it.

Link: http://www.kjn.gov.rs/ci/izvestajiORadu.html

Also, the illogicality in the positions taken by Administrative Court regarding the applying of provisions of Public Procurement Law has also been discussed at 41st session of the Committee for Finance, where Report on Performance of Republic Commission was being considered, and where President of Republic Commission clearly pointed out to the members of the Committee responsible for monitoring the work of Republic Commission, that this problem exists. We are also referring you to the link and video clip from the session in question, and if you please pay attention to the part around 23:52 min.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7EgcWHdN4

Finally, Republic Commission has submitted to the Committee for Finance the proposal for authentic interpretation of the provision of the Public Procurement Law related to the evidence of payment of the fee for submitted protection of rights, in order to remove all of the dilemmas. This proposal was submitted to the National Assembly on November 4th 2014, and it still has not been decided upon. Please find attached the copy of this document as well.

We would also like to emphasize that in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes, the Administrative Court has the possibility to decide upon administrative matter with a judgment that would completely replace the decision of Republic Commission, in case an appeal is submitted upon it again, and this has not been the case so far. If Administrative Court were to make a decision instead of Republic Commission, it should inform Committee for Finance about it, however this has not been the case so far. On the other hand, Republic Commission itself did point out the said fact to the Committee for Finance of National Assembly.