Analysis of Legal Protection in Public Procurement Procedures in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The aim of this study is to find answers to the question whether the existing legal framework in BiH meets the requirements of efficient legal protection in public procurement procedures from the perspective of the relevant EU legal standards. In this sense, the study suggests the direction of a possible legal intervention which could improve the legal protection rules in public procurement procedures in BiH with regard to the relevant European and comparative law.

Themes: Governance and Service DeliveryTransparency and Open GovernmentInstitutional Communication
Stanka Pejaković


Legal protection rules should ensure equal treatment for all entrepreneurs in public procurement, efficiency and promptness in the implementation of public procurement procedures, but also enhance legal security in this area.  However, this analysis shows that the area of ​​legal protection in public procurement in BiH is not sufficiently standardized, and that there are numerous factors that influence the restriction of the right to protection in the area of ​​public procurement.

Public Procurement Law (PPL) has not precisely and explicitly prescribed the principles related to the legal protection procedure, such as the principles legality, promptness and efficiency, accessibility, publicity and contradiction. Appeals may be filed by any economic operator having or having had an interest in public procurement contract award. But.  The specific state authorities which are competent, i.e. obliged to respect the legality and public interest, such as Prosecutor's Office of BiH and the Council of Competition, should also have legal capacity in appeal procedure.

Communication between the contracting authority and the PRB only takes place in writing.  However, in practice the contradiction is incomplete if it is reduced to written communication by the submission to the PRB, which is why PPL should have left the possibility to the parties to present allegations at an oral debate. The LPP should contain more precise provisions about who ultimately bears the costs of review procedure, their amount, to whom and in which time limit they must be paid.

Another unsatisfactory decision about the PRB is decentralization (delegating) of prerogatives to other entities, in particular those who are not legal persons. Taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the situation and exceptionally important legal protection in public procurement procedures, centralization of work of this entity would have a positive impact on the quality of work itself, unified proceedings, decreased costs and a responsible, successful operating.

The report is part of the project Open Public Procurement in Bosnia and Herzegovina jointly implemented by the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN), Analitika - Centre for Social Research, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (CPI). The Project is financed by the European Union and co-financed by the UK Government.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The publication in English is available HERE.

The publication in local languages is available HERE.