從歐盟公共契約法探討具一般經濟利益公共服務之委外

Outsourcing the Public Services of General Economic Interest under EU Public Contract Law

10.7015/JEAS.202109_51(3).0004

張南薰(Nan-Hsun Chang)

勞務特許 ； 特許契約 ； 歐盟特許採購指令 ； 歐盟公共採購指令 ； 公私協力關係 ； service concession ； concession contract ； EU Directive on Concession ； EU Public Procurement Directive ； public-private partnership

歐美研究

51卷3期（2021 / 09 / 01）

557 - 596

繁體中文

將具有一般經濟利益之公共服務委託私人經營時，可以勞務採購或勞務特許為之。二者在公共服務委外經營上雖扮演重要角色，但與勞務採購不同，勞務特許直至2014年歐盟才通過特許採購指令加以規範。然而，此一指令雖給予勞務特許較明確之定義及較有彈性的選商程序等，但仍存若干問題。勞務特許及勞務採購之區別亦存在疑義，包括如何確認應移轉之風險類型、應移轉風險之程度為何及涉及以公法限制或降低風險時能否符合營運風險之移轉等問題。上述問題在歐盟法院之個案中亦有討論，本文即藉由對相關案例之研究釐清二者之實質內涵與適用關係。

One of the primary means of outsourcing public services of general economic interest in the EU, service concessions have been excluded from EU directives on public procurement since the first public procurement law was adopted in the 1970s. However, the legal framework on service concessions established under CJEU case-law changed following implementation of the 2014 Directive on Concession, which aimed to bring legal certainty and transparency to procedures associated with choosing concessioners and the performance of concession contracts. This new Directive provides for looser procedures than the 2014 Public Procurement Directive when contracting authorities decide to entrust the delivery of public services to the private sector through concession contracts, but several important issues are left to be clarified, particularly the distinction between public services contracts and service concessions. This article attempts to provide a wholistic picture of the legal frameworks for outsourcing public services in the EU, including via public service contracts and service concessions under the public procurement law and the case-law of CJEU. Following establishment of the frameworks, this article tries to clarify the ambiguous conceptions of public services contracts and service concession through discussion of the various types of risk, and how much risk should be transferred in the determination of contract types. Also, if operational risks are limited, or extremely low due to the supervision of public service under the domestic public law, how is the nature of the contract determined?

1. Bovis, C. (2010). Public private partnerships: The challenges and opportunities for delivering public services in the 21st century. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 5, 1: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21552/EPPPL/2010/1/89
   連結：
2. Bovis, C. (2011). Public service partnership as instruments of public sector management in the EU. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 6, 4: 201-228. https://doi.org/ 10.21552/EPPPL/2011/4/129
   連結：
3. Graells, A. S. (2012). What need and logic for a new directive on concessions, particularly regarding the issue of their economic balance? European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 7, 2: 94-104. https://doi.org/10.21552/EPPPL/ 2012/2/141
   連結：
4. Schoenmaekers, S. (2016). Public procurement and services of general economic interest. In C. Bovis (Ed.), Research handbook on EU Public Procurement Law (pp. 295-322). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781953266.00019
   連結：
5. van Garsse, S. (2016). Concessions and public procurement. In C. Bovis (Ed.), Research handbook on EU public procurement law (pp. 593-626). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/978178195 3266.00031
   連結：
6. 洪德欽 (2014)。〈歐洲聯盟法的法源〉，《華岡法粹》，57: 1-42。(Horng, D.-C. [2014]. Sources of the European Union law. Hwa Kang Law Review, 57: 1-42.)
7. 陳麗娟 (2016)。〈歐盟特許採購指令簡介〉，《貿易政策論叢》，25: 129-159。(Chen, L.-J. [2016]. The introduction of EU concession directive. Chinese National Federation of Industries Committee on Trade Development, 25: 129-159.)
8. Bovis, C. (2006). EC public procurement: Case law and regulation. Oxford University Press.
9. Bovis, C. (2015). The law of EU public procurement. Oxford University Press.
10. Burnett, M. (2014). The new European directive on the award of concession contracts-promoting value for money in PPP contracts? European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 9, 2: 86-103.
11. Carnata, R. (2015). The changes to the public contract directives and the story they tell about how EU law works. Common Market Law Review, 52, 2: 391-460.
12. Clarke, C. M. (2015). An overview of the CJEU’s current approach towards the application of the underlying treaty principles governing concessions: Dose the new concession directive reflect the court’s progressive functional methodology and provide for legal certainty? European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 10, 4: 273-285.
13. de Koninck, C., Ronse, T., & Timmermans, W. (2015). European Public Procurement Law: The public sector procurement Directive 2014/24/EU explained through 30 years of case law by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Kluwer Law International.
14. European Commission. (2004). Green paper on public-private partnerships and Community law on public contracts and concessions (Commission staff working paper COM(2004) 0327 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE X:52004DC0327&from=EN
15. European Commission. (2007). Services of general interest, including social services of general interest: A new European commitment (COM(2007) 725 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52007DC0725
16. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM(2010)2020 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52 010DC2020
17. Fiedziuk, N. (2013). Putting services of general economic interest up for tender: Reflections on applicable EU rules. Common Market Law Review, 50, 1: 87-114.
18. Graells, A. S. (2015). The continuing relevance of the general principle of EU public procurement law after the adoption of the 2014 concessions directive. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 10, 3: 130-139.
19. Kitsos, J. (2018). Defining concessions in EU public procurement law: Has directive 2014/23 missed another opportunity for conceptual clarification? European Law Review, 43, 4: 549-568.