READD Law Firm Achieves a Favorable Judgment for Client in a public procurement dispute concerning a competitor’s exclusion from further participation in a procurement procedure

The READD Law Firm team has successfully secured a favorable ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court (the Senate) and a judgment from the Administrative District Court (the District Court) in a public procurement dispute, resulting in the annulment of a decision by the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (IUB). By that decision, the client's competitor had been recognized as the winner of a catering services procurement, despite the fact that its ultimate beneficial owner had missed the tax declaration submission deadline by more than 15 days. Although there was no tax debt, in READD Law Firm's view, this circumstance in itself constituted an independent ground for excluding the tenderer pursuant to Section 42, Paragraph 2, Clause 2 and Paragraph 3, Clause 5 of the Public Procurement Law (PIL).

When applying to the IUB, we pointed out that the legislator had deliberately provided for a ground for exclusion even in cases where there is no tax debt, but only a delay in submitting the tax declaration. However, the IUB concluded that in this specific case, the exclusion of the tenderer would be disproportionate and would not correspond to the legislator's intent. On behalf of the client, we prepared an application to the District Court, arguing that there is no basis to narrow the scope of the provisions of the Public Procurement Law and to deviate from the legislator's clearly expressed choice to provide for a ground for exclusion even when there is no tax debt, but the tax declaration submission deadline has been missed. We emphasized that the application of legal norms cannot be made dependent on additional prerequisites that the legislator has not established.

The District Court initially rejected the request for interim relief; however, by a decision of the Senate dated November 19, 2025, upon reviewing the matter of interim relief, the Senate found READD Law Firm's argumentation well-founded and concluded that there is no basis for narrowing the scope of the respective legal provisions. The Senate granted the request for interim relief, prohibiting the contracting authority from entering into the procurement contract with the competitor. Furthermore, on October 9, 2026, the District Court delivered its judgment in the case, also recognizing READD Law Firm's argumentation as well-founded and revoking the IUB decision.

Although the litigation in this case has not yet concluded, this is a significant milestone in protecting the client's interests. In public procurement disputes, securing interim relief before the conclusion of a contract is crucial to preserving a realistic opportunity for the client to be awarded the contract. Securing such protection is difficult in practice, which is why it is particularly important to identify legally significant issues right at the beginning of the proceedings, carefully analyze the applicable legal norms, and prepare persuasive legal arguments.