Dear Readers,
The time has come: the EU framework for state aid to promote research, development and innovation, which was already the subject of extremely controversial debate in its draft version, was adopted by the EU Commission on May 21, 2014 and will enter into force on July 1, 2014.
So far, only the English version of the Union Framework is available, which – in relation to the draft version of the Union Framework – already contains some surprising innovations. In our first article, we report on some of the most important new regulations in the R&D aid area and will provide you with a comprehensive overview in the next issues – as soon as the German version with its concrete wording is available.
But that is not enough of the new regulations on state aid: The new GBER, which was adopted by the EU Commission at the same time as the EU Framework, also contains a number of changes in state aid law that must be observed by the research community, including research institutions and universities. In addition, the EU Commission has defined requirements for transparency in the granting of subsidies.
Furthermore, you will find a summary from the BMBF Federal Report on Research and Innovation 2014 as well as from the DZHW report on the development of dropout rates at German universities. Both contain topics that are extremely exciting for higher education practitioners. From the case law on public procurement, we present a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, which deals with bidder information and its scope.
We wish you interesting reading!
Sincerely yours
Public Sector Team of KPMG Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Mathias Oberndörfer Dr. Anke Empting
If the contracting authority is made aware by a tenderer’s question that it had made mistakes which are likely to cause a tenderer to be mistaken about an essential formality of the award procedure, it may not content itself with clarifying the questioning tenderer. According to the Koblenz Higher Regional Court in its ruling of April 30, 2014.
One bidder pointed out a discrepancy to the contracting authority during a telephone call and, when asked, was told that a typing error had crept into the information letter. In doing so, the contracting authority had answered a bidder’s question – albeit only by telephone – and in this way provided clarity to one bidder about the timing of the opening date.
In the opinion of the court, the contracting authority should have provided clarification to all companies that had requested the tender documents in compliance with the principle of equal treatment pursuant to Section 97 (1). 2 ARC.
