April 30, 2014 \u2013 The law firm \u201cSpilios Spiliopoulos & Associates\u201d represents the public limited company ERGOTRAK SA in the drafting of a preliminary appeal regarding its participation in a public tender for the supply of a power generator set.<\/p>\n
Among other things, the Office demonstrated before the Court that the act awarding the tender lacked specific reasoning and was vague. The Court accepted that the awarding act must contain sufficient, clear, and specific documentation. Specific reasoning may even be derived from opinions of bodies that have advisory powers under the law, and therefore the deciding body, if it adopts the relevant opinion, makes it part of the reasoning behind the final act. The substantive assessment and evaluation of the facts form the basis on which the administrative body reaches its conclusion. Therefore, the “heart” of the reasoning behind the administrative act consists of the administrative body’s evaluative considerations regarding the factual material gathered that supports the solution given. The presentation of the administrative body’s considerations, either in the body of the act itself or in the accompanying documents, allows the interested party to know how the administrative body assessed the information in the file and the evaluation it carried out in the context of the tender.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
April 30, 2014 \u2013 The law firm \u201cSpilios Spiliopoulos & Associates\u201d represents the public limited company ERGOTRAK SA in the drafting of a preliminary appeal regarding its participation in a public tender for the supply of a power generator set.
\nAmong other things, the Office demonstrated before the Court that the act awarding the tender lacked specific reasoning and was vague. The Court accepted that the awarding act must contain sufficient, clear, and specific documentation. Specific reasoning may even be derived from opinions of bodies that have advisory powers under the law, and therefore the deciding body, if it adopts the relevant opinion, makes it part of the reasoning behind the final act. The substantive assessment and evaluation of the facts form the basis on which the administrative body reaches its conclusion. Therefore, the “heart” of the reasoning behind the administrative act consists of the administrative body’s evaluative considerations regarding the factual material gathered that supports the solution given. The presentation of the administrative body’s considerations, either in the body of the act itself or in the accompanying documents, allows the interested party to know how the administrative body assessed the information in the file and the evaluation it carried out in the context of the tender.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pgc_meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[525],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases"],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"spiliopouloslaw","author_link":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/author\/root2christos\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"CASES<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"April 30, 2014 \u2013 The law firm \u201cSpilios Spiliopoulos & Associates\u201d represents the public limited company ERGOTRAK SA in the drafting of a preliminary appeal regarding its participation in a public tender for the supply of a power generator set. Among other things, the Office demonstrated before the Court that the act awarding the tender…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}