POSTĘPOWANIE WYWOŁANE WNIESIENIEM SKARGI NA ORZECZENIE KRAJOWEJ IZBY ODWOŁAWCZEJ – ZAGADNIENIA KONSTRUKCYJNE
PROCEEDINGS TRIGGERED BY THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF APPEAL: STRUCTURAL ISSUES

Summary/Abstract: The effective functioning of the public procurement system is inextricably linked to the proper functioning of legal remedies. Consistency and stability are key elements of an effective complaint and judicial system. Therefore, within the framework of this study, the author evaluates the current construction of the judicial proceedings triggered by the filing of a complaint against the decision of the National Board of Appeals. The study, using the dogmatic-legal method, with reference to the theory of law and the practice of its application, is aimed at determining whether the formation of the complaint procedure is currently optimal. The course of complaintjudicial proceedings within the framework of public procurement is regulated to a basic extent on three statutory levels: the Law on Public Procurement, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Law on Special Arrangements for Preventing, Counteracting and Combating COVID-19, Other Communicable Diseases and Emergencies Caused by Them. The interpenetration of these procedural regulations will always pose a threat to the proper course of proceedings. The study pays special attention to remote proceedings in civil proceedings, restrictions on the openness of court actions, the abandonment of the collegiality of the panel of judges, and signals the problem of appealing the orders of the court of public procurement. Consequently, it is pointed out that basing the system of judicial review on these three statutory pillars appears to pose a threat to the effective implementation of judicial legal protection in public procurement. The findings and assessments presented here can be viewed as a plea for legislative work aimed at amending the complaint-court procedure.

• Details
• Contents