I LOU regleras kommunala och statliga myndigheters anskaffningar av byggentreprenader, varor, tjänster och byggkoncessioner. Upphandlingsbestämmelserna har tillkommit för att säkerställa att invånarna får det bästa och det mesta för skattepengarna. LOU har sin grund i EU-rätten och EU:s upphandlingsdirektiv. Direktivet omfattar inte alla upphandlingar, exempelvis omfattas inte upphandlingar vars värde underskrider vissa belopp, så kallade tröskelvärden och upphandlingar av B-tjänter, vilket avser upphandlingar av bland annat hälsovård, socialtjänst och undervisning. Sverige har dock valt att införa bestämmelser även för upphandlingar som inte omfattas av direktivet.I denna uppsats behandlas arbets- och anställningsvillkor i offentliga upphandlingar.Det har förekommit att upphandlande myndigheter har ställt krav i upphandlingar på att leverantörerna ska vara bundna av kollektivavtal. Sådana krav strider enligt praxis mot de grundläggande EU-rättsliga principerna. De grundläggande principerna för offentliga upphandlingar är principen om likabehandling, icke-diskrimineringsprincipen, principen om ömsesidigt erkännande, proportionalitetsprincipen och öppenhetsprincipen. Dessa principer har sin grund i EU-rätten men har förts in i portalparagrafen i den svenska lagen och gäller därför även för upphandlingar som inte omfattas av direktivet.Trots att det strider mot gällande rätt att i offentliga upphandlingar kräva att leverantörerna ska ha tecknat kollektivavtal kan det vara förenligt med gällande rätt att ställa villkor på att leverantören ska tillämpa vissa specifika arbets- och anställningsvillkor. I direktivet och i LOU finns det bestämmelser som reglerar vilka villkor som kan ställas i upphandlingens olika upphandlingskriterium. Kraven i en upphandling kan delas upp i kvalifikationskriterier, urvalskriterier, tekniska specifikationer, utförandevillkor och tilldelningskriterier. Krav omfattande sociala hänsyn kan ställas i vardera typen av upphandlingskriterium, men utrymmet för att ställa arbets- och anställningsvillkor varierar. I uppsatsen analyserar jag vilka arbets- och anställningsvillkor som kan och borde kunna ställas i offentlig upphandling utifrån de olika typerna av upphandlingskriterium. Även skillnaden avseende vilka arbets- och anställningsvillkor som kan ställas i upphandlingar som omfattas av direktivet respektive upphandlingar som inte omfattas av direktivet analyseras i denna uppsats.

Genom de omarbetade direktiven, 2004/18/EG (klassiska direktivet) och 2004/17/EG (försörjningsdirektivet), har det tillkommit nya regleringar beträffande offentlig upphandling. De nya direktiven har till syfte att förbättra regelsystemet för att bättre uppnå syftet med lagstiftningen om offentlig upphandling. I båda direktiven har det tillkommit bestämmelser om användningen av ramavtal samt bestämmelser om de båda nya tilldelningsförfarandena elektronisk auktion och dynamiska inköpssystem. I det klassiska direktivet har det tillkommit ett nytt upphandlingsförfarande, konkurrenspräglad dialog. I dessa nya bestämmelser i de konsoliderade direktiven om offentlig upphandling kommer regleringar som bl a innehåller skrivningen att de upphandlande enheterna inte får använda det aktuella förfarandet på ett sätt som hindrar, begränsar eller snedvrider konkurrensen.Denna skrivning tycks vara hämtad från konkurrensbegränsningsreglerna i artikel 81 och 82 i EG-fördraget. Uppsatsen behandlar vad denna skrivning i det klassiska - direktivet har för betydelse inom upphandlingsrätten. Innebär skrivningen att den upphandlande enheten inte får hindra, begränsa eller snedvrida konkurrensen på ett sätt som är förbjudet enligt artikel 81 och 82 i EGF, d.v.s. skall man göra en analog tillämpning av förbuden i artikel 81 och 82 EGF vid tolkningen av skrivningen. Alternativt finns det en för offentlig upphandling egen modell för vad som hindrar, begränsar eller snedvrider konkurrensen. Uppsatsen fokuserar i mångt och mycket på förhållandet mellan ”skrivningen” och artikel 2 (i det klassiska direktivet) som ger uttryck för de EG-rättsliga principerna som ligger till grund för att syftet med upphandlingsreglerna uppnås, d.v.s. att offentlig upphandling öppnas för konkurrens. Ger ”skrivningen” något utökat skydd utöver det skydd som de EG-rättsliga principerna ger för att en upphandlande enhet inte skall snedvrida konkurrensen. / Through the revised directives, 2004/18/EG (The Classical directive) and 2004/17/EG (The Directive of supply), new rules have been brought in concerning public procurement. The new directives have the purpose to improve the system of regulation to better achieve the purpose with the legislation of public procurement. In both directives new regulations about the new procedures of awarding contracts, Dynamic purchasing systems and Electronic auctions, and the use of Framework agreements have been brought in. In the Classical directive a new procedure of public procurement has been brought in, i.e. so-called Competitive dialogue. In these new regulations there are rules which, among other things, contains the writing “contracting authorities may not use the procedure in such a way as to prevent, restrict or distort competition”. This writing seem to be descended from the rules of limiting competition in article 81 and 82 in the EC-treaty. This thesis is about the meaning of this writing in the Classical directive of public procurement within the law of public procurement. Is the meaning of the writing that a contracting authority may not prevent, restrict or distort competition in a way that is forbidden in article 81 and 82 in the EC-treaty, i.e. will you make an analogue application of the prohibitions in article 81 and 82 in the interpretation of the writing. Alternatively is there a special model in the law of public procurement of what prevents, restricts or distorts competition? This thesis is, in a large extent, focusing on the relationship between “the writing” and article 2 in the Classical directive. Article 2 express the principles of EC-law which is fundamental for the purpose of the law of public procurement to be achieved, i.e. that public procurement is being opened-up to competition. Does the “writing” give any further protection exceeding that protection being given by the principles of EC-law, article 2, for a contracting authority not to distort the competition?

The 2008 financial crisis provoked a debate over how we as a democratic society ought to govern the modern market economy. Our prevailing response to this problem of economic governance has been to appeal either to free markets as self-regulating, self-optimizing systems, or to technocratic rule by neutral experts. Both these systems are appealing because of they claim to promote the public good free of the corruption, irrationality, conflict, and vagaries of democratic politics. This project aims to overcome this skepticism to sketch an account of a democratic approach to economic governance, inspired by the thought and reforms of the Progressive Era. / Government

Distinction between public and private law is deeply rooted in Lithuania, as a continental law country, and is often treated as a basis for segregation of regulatory measures and methods. The doctoral thesis analyses specific regulation measure: regulatory contract in public law. It contains both private and public law elements: contract, as a way of regulation, and public law, as the area of regulation. Such transfer of contract, a traditional private law instrument, into public law causes various problems and dilemmas. These problematic application areas are the key target of the analysis. Paper shows that the difference between public and private law may not be treated as sufficient reason for declining contract usage for regulatory purposes in public law. It also explains the impact on public law principles of publicity and equality caused by specifics of the contract. Major part of the paper is dedicated to the analysis of freedom of contract and its application to regulatory contracts in public law. Analysis shows that despite the imperative nature of the public law, freedom of contract is not only possible but also one of the most essential requirements for conclusion of contracts in public law area. All identified specifics have their impact on regulation modification possibilities and judicial review procedure: contractual aspect makes regulation amendments more complicated and also gives wider possibilities for challenging the established regulation. / Skirtumas tarp viešosios ir privatinės teisės Lietuvoje, kaip kontinentinės teisės valstybėje, yra giliai įsišaknijęs. Dažnai jis yra traktuojamas kaip priemonių ir metodų atskyrimo pagrindas. Disertacijoje analizuojama specifinė reguliavimo priemonė – reguliacinės sutartys viešojoje teisėje. Ši priemonė apima tiek privatinės, tiek viešosios teisės elementus: sutartį, kaip reguliavimo būdą, ir viešąją teisę, kaip reguliavimo sritį. Toks tradicinės privatinės teisės priemonės – sutarties – integravimas į viešąją teisę sukelia įvairias problemas ir klausimus. Būtent šie probleminiai klausimai yra analizuojami tyrime. Tyrimas parodo, kad skirtumas tarp viešosios ir privatinės teisės negali būti laikomas pakankama priežastimi atmesti sutarties panaudojimo viešojoje teisėje galimybes, ir atskleidžia sutarties specifikos poveikį viešosios teisės viešumo ir lygybės principams. Didžiausia tyrimo dalis yra skirta sutarties laisvės įtakos reguliacinėms sutartims viešojoje teisėje analizei. Nepaisant imperatyvaus viešosios teisės pobūdžio, sutarties laisvė yra ne tik įmanoma, bet ir yra vienas iš svarbiausių reikalavimų sudarant sutartis viešojoje teisėje. Visi tyrime nustatyti reguliacinių sutarčių viešojoje teisėje ypatumai daro įtaką jomis nustatyto reguliavimo taikymui, keitimo galimybėms ir teisminės peržiūros tvarkai: sutartinis reguliavimo pobūdis apsunkina nustatyto reguliavimo keitimą bei suteikia platesnes galimybes jo ginčijimui.

Skirtumas tarp viešosios ir privatinės teisės Lietuvoje, kaip kontinentinės teisės valstybėje, yra giliai įsišaknijęs. Dažnai jis yra traktuojamas kaip priemonių ir metodų atskyrimo pagrindas. Disertacijoje analizuojama specifinė reguliavimo priemonė – reguliacinės sutartys viešojoje teisėje. Ši priemonė apima tiek privatinės, tiek viešosios teisės elementus: sutartį, kaip reguliavimo būdą, ir viešąją teisę, kaip reguliavimo sritį. Toks tradicinės privatinės teisės priemonės – sutarties – integravimas į viešąją teisę sukelia įvairias problemas ir klausimus. Būtent šie probleminiai klausimai yra analizuojami tyrime. Tyrimas parodo, kad skirtumas tarp viešosios ir privatinės teisės negali būti laikomas pakankama priežastimi atmesti sutarties panaudojimo viešojoje teisėje galimybes, ir atskleidžia sutarties specifikos poveikį viešosios teisės viešumo ir lygybės principams. Didžiausia tyrimo dalis yra skirta sutarties laisvės įtakos reguliacinėms sutartims viešojoje teisėje analizei. Nepaisant imperatyvaus viešosios teisės pobūdžio, sutarties laisvė yra ne tik įmanoma, bet ir yra vienas iš svarbiausių reikalavimų sudarant sutartis viešojoje teisėje. Visi tyrime nustatyti reguliacinių sutarčių viešojoje teisėje ypatumai daro įtaką jomis nustatyto reguliavimo taikymui, keitimo galimybėms ir teisminės peržiūros tvarkai: sutartinis reguliavimo pobūdis apsunkina nustatyto reguliavimo keitimą bei suteikia platesnes galimybes jo ginčijimui. / Distinction between public and private law is deeply rooted in Lithuania, as a continental law country, and is often treated as a basis for segregation of regulatory measures and methods. The doctoral thesis analyses specific regulation measure: regulatory contract in public law. It contains both private and public law elements: contract, as a way of regulation, and public law, as the area of regulation. Such transfer of contract, a traditional private law instrument, into public law causes various problems and dilemmas. These problematic application areas are the key target of the analysis. Paper shows that the difference between public and private law may not be treated as sufficient reason for declining contract usage for regulatory purposes in public law. It also explains the impact on public law principles of publicity and equality caused by specifics of the contract. Major part of the paper is dedicated to the analysis of freedom of contract and its application to regulatory contracts in public law. Analysis shows that despite the imperative nature of the public law, freedom of contract is not only possible but also one of the most essential requirements for conclusion of contracts in public law area. All identified specifics have their impact on regulation modification possibilities and judicial review procedure: contractual aspect makes regulation amendments more complicated and also gives wider possibilities for challenging the established regulation.

<p>Judicial remedies are, amongst others, a vehicle through which respect, protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights can be delivered to those who need them. A remedy is the perspective from which litigants judge either the success or failure of judicial decisions. Judicial remedies make the rights whole, they complete the justiciability of human rights because without them human rights remain statements of legal rhetoric. The nature of the remedies that the courts grant is not only based on the normative nature of the rights they seek to enforce. They are also influenced by factors such as the goals and objectives of judicial remedies as defined, amongst others, by the ethos of either corrective or distributive forms of justice. This thesis explored these factors and their impact on judicial remedies. Stress is put on the impact of the separation of powers doctrine, institutional competence concerns and on the forms of justice pursued by courts. The study is based on the judicial enforcement of the socio-economic rights protected in the South African 1996 Constitution. The research undertaken here was intended to guide scholars, legal practitioners and judicial officers who confront socio-economic rights issues as part of their daily work.</p>

The purpose of the study was to determine if the language of the negotiated agreements of Indiana School Corporations was reflected in professional growth and staff development activities. Collective bargaining agreements during 1982-1983 and 1988-1989 from 289 Indiana School Corporations were compared to identify the existence, if any, of (a) a trend in the acknowledgement of professional growth and staff development-related statements found in the contracts, and (b) policy statements delineating how staff development activities and curriculum-related activities were to be conducted in schools. Contract language in which comparisons appeared to be significant were subjected to the Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance (Friedman ANOVA) to determine whether or not comparisons were statistically significant at the .05 level. Such statistically significant comparisons also helped to determine whether or not school corporations incorporated contract language, which gave instructional staff a legal position in decisions which affected teacher professional growth and participation in curriculum-related matters.Conclusions1. Compared to small enrollment Indiana School Corporations (3,000 students or less), large enrollment Indiana School Corporations (3,001 or more students) were more likely than statistically expected to provide salary compensation for higher levels of teacher education training and sabbatical leave compensation at statistically significant levels of .05 or less, based upon use of the chi-square statistic.2. The research findings failed to support movement toward greater Indiana School Corporation contract language in 1982-1983 and 1988-1989 in most of the specified staff development factors under investigation in the research. Therefore, contrary to the literature which claimed that collective bargaining would be used as a vehicle for staff development change, collective bargaining has not provided structural support for such change among Indiana School Corporations. / Department of Educational Leadership

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of satisfaction of selected teacher spokespersons toward Indiana Public Law 217, the collective bargaining law for teachers.A survey instrument consisting of forty-six items in five Likert-response categories was mailed to 125 randomly selected teacher spokespersons in Indiana. Space was provided for respondents to write comments or rationale for their answers. Fifty-seven teacher spokespersons responded to the survey.The following rank order was utilized for each of the sections of Indiana Public j 217 ranging from (5) highly dissatisfied, (4) somewhat dissatisfied, (3) neutral, (2) somewhat satisfied to (1) highly satisfied based on the mean scores.Findings1. Selected teacher spokespersons rated four section items between 4.00 and 5.00.2. Of the forty-six section items that were surveyed, seventeen sections were rated between 3.00 and 3.99.3. Negotiators for the teachers ranked seventeen sections of Indiana Public L&7_ between 2.00 and 2.99.4. Eight section items were rated between 1.00 and 1.99 by the teacher spokesperson.Conclusions1. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the inability to strike and the penalities for unlawful strikes.2. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the procedures and restrictions governing bargaining and discussions.3. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the provisions and procedures of fact-finding, arbitration and maintaining a status quo contract.4. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the sections of the law dealing with the rights of the employer5. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the stated intent of the law.6. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the structure and powers of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board.7. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the definitions of certificated employees and exclusive representative.8. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the procedures of unfair practices as stated in the law.9. Teacher spokesperson were satisfied with the procedures of dues deductions as stated in the law.

No description available.

<p>Judicial remedies are, amongst others, a vehicle through which respect, protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights can be delivered to those who need them. A remedy is the perspective from which litigants judge either the success or failure of judicial decisions. Judicial remedies make the rights whole, they complete the justiciability of human rights because without them human rights remain statements of legal rhetoric. The nature of the remedies that the courts grant is not only based on the normative nature of the rights they seek to enforce. They are also influenced by factors such as the goals and objectives of judicial remedies as defined, amongst others, by the ethos of either corrective or distributive forms of justice. This thesis explored these factors and their impact on judicial remedies. Stress is put on the impact of the separation of powers doctrine, institutional competence concerns and on the forms of justice pursued by courts. The study is based on the judicial enforcement of the socio-economic rights protected in the South African 1996 Constitution. The research undertaken here was intended to guide scholars, legal practitioners and judicial officers who confront socio-economic rights issues as part of their daily work.</p>