Da\u017eas tiesu prakses atzi\u0146as (IV)<\/p>\n
Rakst\u0101 turpin\u0101m apskat\u012bt Latvijas Republikas Augst\u0101k\u0101s Tiesas (AT) 2018.gada atzi\u0146as1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Pied\u0101v\u0101juma v\u0113rt\u0113\u0161ana<\/b>: AT atg\u0101dina, ka, ja ar konkr\u0113tiem argumentiem ap\u0161aub\u012bta pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101s inform\u0101cijas atbilst\u012bba tehniskajai specifik\u0101cijai, par pietiekamu pier\u0101d\u012bjumu atbilst\u012bbai neb\u016btu atz\u012bstams uzvar\u0113t\u0101jas tehnisk\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101juma apraksts (pied\u0101v\u0101juma forma), jo tas nor\u0101da vien\u012bgi uz pretendenta uzskatu par savu pied\u0101v\u0101jumu, bet pats par sevi neapliecina t\u0101 satura patiesumu. T\u0101 k\u0101 liet\u0101 str\u012bds ir tie\u0161i par to, vai uzvar\u0113t\u0101ja pied\u0101v\u0101jums atbilst nolikumam, tad pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja un uzvar\u0113ju\u0161\u0101 pretendenta viedoklis, ka uzvar\u0113t\u0101js ir izpild\u012bjis nolikuma pras\u012bbas, pats par sevi nevar tikt uztverts k\u0101 pietiekams objekt\u012bvs apliecin\u0101jums pied\u0101v\u0101juma atbilst\u012bbai.<\/b> Tie\u0161i preces ra\u017eot\u0101js var sniegt visizsme\u013co\u0161\u0101ko inform\u0101ciju par preci, l\u012bdz ar to ra\u017eot\u0101ja sniegt\u0101s zi\u0146as var\u0113tu b\u016bt viens no pier\u0101d\u012bjumiem pied\u0101v\u0101juma atbilst\u012bbas nov\u0113rt\u0113\u0161anai. (06.09.2018. SKA-909\/2018<\/b>) V\u0113r\u0161an\u0101s ties\u0101 \u201cmazaj\u0101 iepirkum\u0101\u201d<\/b>: Izskatot pieteikumu par iepirkumu, kas nesasniedz Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu sniedz\u0113ju (SPS) iepirkumu likum\u0101 noteikto l\u012bgumcenas robe\u017eu, rajona tiesa secin\u0101ja, ka pieteic\u0113jai nebija izred\u017eu uzvar\u0113t, jo pied\u0101v\u0101jums p\u0101rsniedza paredzamo l\u012bgumcenu, t\u0101d\u0113\u013c izbeidza tiesved\u012bbu. AT nor\u0101da, ka tiesa pamatoti secin\u0101jusi, ka uz t\u0101diem SPS iepirkumiem, kuru v\u0113rt\u012bba nesasniedz Ministru kabineta (MK) noteikto robe\u017ev\u0113rt\u012bbu, p\u0113c analo\u0123ijas attiecin\u0101ms ties\u012bbu aizsardz\u012bbas meh\u0101nisms, k\u0101ds Publisko iepirkumu likum\u0101 (PIL) paredz\u0113ts t.s. mazo iepirkumu tiesiskuma kontrolei. Vienlaikus priek\u0161nosac\u012bjums tam, lai persona var\u0113tu v\u0113rsties ties\u0101, iebilstot pret pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja l\u0113mumu, ir apst\u0101klis, ka persona ir piedal\u012bjusies iepirkum\u0101, iesniedzot pied\u0101v\u0101jumu. Nek\u0101di papildu nosac\u012bjumi norm\u0101 nav izvirz\u012bti.<\/b> T\u0101tad ties\u012bbas iesniegt pieteikumu nav atkar\u012bgas no t\u0101, vai persona vai t\u0101s pied\u0101v\u0101jums atbilst nolikuma pras\u012bb\u0101m un vai personai faktiski bija iesp\u0113jams ieg\u016bt l\u012bguma sl\u0113g\u0161anas ties\u012bbas. Un, pat ja neap\u0161aub\u0101mi b\u016btu konstat\u0113jams, ka pieteic\u0113ja nevar uzvar\u0113t konkr\u0113taj\u0101 iepirkum\u0101, tas neb\u016btu \u0161\u0137\u0113rslis atz\u012bt pieteic\u0113jas ties\u012bbas iebilst pret to, ka l\u012bguma sl\u0113g\u0161anas ties\u012bbas tiek pie\u0161\u0137irtas citam pretendentam – ir le\u0123it\u012bma pieteic\u0113jas interese pan\u0101kt, ka uzvar\u0113t\u0101js tiek izsl\u0113gts, pat ja pa\u0161ai nav izred\u017eu uzvar\u0113t konkr\u0113taj\u0101 iepirkum\u0101. (27.08.2018. SKA-1329<\/b>) Cit\u0101 liet\u0101 AT atg\u0101dina, ka PIL 8.2pant\u0101 (iepriek\u0161\u0113j\u0101 PIL redakcija) nav paredz\u0113ta iesp\u0113ja iebilst pret pras\u012bb\u0101m iepirkuma norises laik\u0101, t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di pieteic\u0113jai, ja t\u0101 nepiekrita ne tikai iepirkuma rezult\u0101tiem, bet ar\u012b nolikuma pras\u012bb\u0101m, bija ties\u012bbas pret t\u0101m iebilst, p\u0101rs\u016bdzot rezult\u0101tus (06.09.2018. SKA-909\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n Finans\u0113juma sa\u0146\u0113m\u0113js (FS):<\/b> Izskatot str\u012bdu par to, vai iepirkuma komisijas l\u0113mums par uzvar\u0113t\u0101ju, kas pie\u0146emts atbilsto\u0161i MK 28.02.2017. noteikumiem Nr.104 \u201eNoteikumi par iepirkuma proced\u016bru un t\u0101s piem\u0113ro\u0161anas k\u0101rt\u012bbu pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja finans\u0113tiem projektiem\u201d, ir p\u0101rbaud\u0101ms ties\u0101 administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa k\u0101rt\u012bb\u0101, AT secin\u0101jusi, ka PIL neparedz kontroles meh\u0101nismu iepirkumam, kuru veic FS. FS nedarbojas k\u0101 iest\u0101de, tas nepilda publisku funkciju un nav pamata uzskat\u012bt, ka apst\u0101klis, ka valsts priv\u0101tperson\u0101m, kuras l\u012bguma izpildi finans\u0113 no ES politiku instrumentu l\u012bdzfinans\u0113juma l\u012bdzek\u013ciem, ir noteikusi nepiecie\u0161am\u012bbu veikt iepirkuma proced\u016bru un noteikusi t\u0101s k\u0101rt\u012bbu, noz\u012bm\u0113, ka \u0161\u0101ds iepirkums tiek veikts publisko ties\u012bbu jom\u0101 un ir pak\u013cauts tiesas kontrolei administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa k\u0101rt\u012bb\u0101. (13.12.2018. SKA-1572\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n Pilnvarojums: <\/b>Pieg\u0101d\u0101t\u0101jiem v\u0113rts zin\u0101t, ka situ\u0101cij\u0101, kad SIA tika iecelta par personu apvien\u012bbas lietvedi, visp\u0101r\u012bgs pilnvarojums parakst\u012bt visus dokumentus, kas nepiecie\u0161ami dal\u012bbai konkurs\u0101, p\u0101rst\u0101v\u0113t sabiedr\u012bbas biedrus ar konkursu saist\u012btaj\u0101s liet\u0101s un r\u012bkoties sabiedr\u012bbas v\u0101rd\u0101, lai \u012bstenotu \u0161\u0101 l\u012bguma m\u0113r\u0137us, neizpilda ties\u012bbu normu pras\u012bbas par \u012bpa\u0161a pilnvarojuma nepiecie\u0161am\u012bbu; no t\u0101 nevar pietiekami skaidri secin\u0101t, ka pilnvarnieks (lietvedis) dr\u012bkst iesniegt ties\u0101 pieteikumu. AT citstarp ir atzinusi, ka ar\u012b univers\u0101lpilnvar\u0101 nor\u0101d\u012bta visp\u0101r\u012bga fr\u0101ze \u201ek\u0101rtot visas manas lietas vis\u0101s tiesu instanc\u0113s ar vis\u0101m ties\u012bb\u0101m, k\u0101das ar likumu pie\u0161\u0137irtas pras\u012bt\u0101jam\u201d neizpilda Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likuma 147(2) pras\u012bbas (16.08.2018. SKA-1249\/2018<\/b>).<\/p>\n Pras\u012bjums par l\u012bgumu:<\/b> Saist\u012bb\u0101 ar nosac\u012bjumiem pieteikuma pie\u0146em\u0161anai AT atg\u0101din\u0101jusi, ka iepirkumu str\u012bdos l\u012bdz\u012bgu gad\u012bjumu nov\u0113r\u0161anas nepiecie\u0161am\u012bbas konstat\u0113\u0161anai iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161ais ir nevis tas, vai tie\u0161\u0101m paredzam\u0101 n\u0101kotn\u0113 var\u0113tu atk\u0101rtoties situ\u0101cija ar t\u0101diem pa\u0161iem faktiskajiem un tiesiskajiem apst\u0101k\u013ciem, bet gan tas, vai tiesisk\u0101 str\u012bda, par kuru ir iesniegts pieteikums, atrisin\u0101jums var\u0113tu b\u016bt aktu\u0101ls citos l\u012bdz\u012bgos (ne oblig\u0101ti tie\u0161i t\u0101dos pa\u0161os) gad\u012bjumos, kuru iest\u0101\u0161an\u0101s iesp\u0113ja ir objekt\u012bvi ticama. Savuk\u0101rt attiec\u012bb\u0101 uz to, ka tiesa saskat\u012bjusi \u0161\u0137\u0113rsli lemt par l\u012bguma termi\u0146a sa\u012bsin\u0101\u0161anu saska\u0146\u0101 ar PIL 85.3(4) (iepriek\u0161\u0113j\u0101 PIL redakcija) t\u0101p\u0113c, ka \u0161\u0101du spriedumu tais\u012bt ne\u013cauj PIL 85.3(5), AT nor\u0101da, ka t\u0101 nevar piekrist, jo ne no PIL 85.3(4) un (5), ne ar\u012b no AT iepriek\u0161 \u0161aj\u0101 liet\u0101 sniegtaj\u0101m atzi\u0146\u0101m neizriet, ka min\u0113to normu piem\u0113ro\u0161ana ir savstarp\u0113ji saist\u012bta. PIL 85.3(4) un (5) nosaka divus da\u017e\u0101dus apst\u0101k\u013cus (apst\u0101k\u013cu kopumus), kuriem iest\u0101joties, tiesa var izv\u0113l\u0113ties maig\u0101k\u0101s sankcijas \u2013 tais\u012bt spriedumu par l\u012bguma termi\u0146a sa\u012bsin\u0101\u0161anu. Tas, ka nav iest\u0101ju\u0161ies apst\u0101k\u013ci, kas saska\u0146\u0101 ar vienu no \u0161\u012bm norm\u0101m liktu (\u013cautu) sa\u012bsin\u0101t l\u012bguma termi\u0146u, neliedz sa\u012bsin\u0101t l\u012bguma termi\u0146u, ja ir iest\u0101ju\u0161ies otr\u0101 norm\u0101 nor\u0101d\u012btie apst\u0101k\u013ci. T\u0101pat AT uzsv\u0113rusi, ka ties\u012bbas iesniegt pieteikumu par iepirkuma l\u012bguma atz\u012b\u0161anu par sp\u0113k\u0101 neeso\u0161u (l\u012bguma noteikumu groz\u012b\u0161anu vai l\u012bguma termi\u0146a sa\u012bsin\u0101\u0161anu) nav atkar\u012bgas no t\u0101, vai un k\u0101d\u0101 m\u0113r\u0101 persona vai t\u0101s pied\u0101v\u0101jums atbilst nolikuma pras\u012bb\u0101m, un vai persona faktiski var\u0113tu iepirkum\u0101 uzvar\u0113t. Liet\u0101 nav str\u012bda par to, ka pieteic\u0113ja visp\u0101r var\u0113tu b\u016bt ieinteres\u0113ta ieg\u016bt l\u012bguma sl\u0113g\u0161anas ties\u012bbas \u0161\u0101da veida iepirkum\u0101. Tas, ka pied\u0101v\u0101jums nesatur\u0113ja inform\u0101ciju nolikum\u0101 pras\u012btaj\u0101 apjom\u0101, ne\u013cauj secin\u0101t, ka pieteic\u0113jai nebija intereses ieg\u016bt l\u012bguma sl\u0113g\u0161anas ties\u012bbas, vai uzskat\u012bt, ka t\u0101 nepretend\u0113 uz uzvaru. B\u016btiskas pieteic\u0113jas pied\u0101v\u0101juma neatbilst\u012bbas nolikuma pras\u012bb\u0101m var\u0113tu b\u016bt pamats pied\u0101v\u0101juma turpm\u0101kai nev\u0113rt\u0113\u0161anai, bet t\u0101s nevar b\u016bt pamats secin\u0101jumam, ka pied\u0101v\u0101jums visp\u0101r nav iesniegts un ka t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di pieteic\u0113ja nav pretendente iepirkum\u0101.<\/b> (11.09.2018. SKA-945\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n Zaud\u0113jumu atl\u012bdzin\u0101\u0161ana:<\/b> Izskatot lietu par zaud\u0113jumu atl\u012bdzin\u0101\u0161anu neieg\u016bt\u0101s pe\u013c\u0146as veid\u0101, AT nor\u0101d\u012bjusi, ka zaud\u0113jumu atl\u012bdzin\u0101jums nevar balst\u012bties uz visp\u0101r\u012bgiem pie\u0146\u0113mumiem par iesp\u0113jamu notikumu att\u012bst\u012bbas gaitu, ja prettiesiskais l\u0113mums neb\u016btu pie\u0146emts. Tas noz\u012bm\u0113, ka gan zaud\u0113jumu es\u012bba, gan c\u0113lo\u0146sakar\u012bba ir j\u0101konstat\u0113, izv\u0113rt\u0113jot liet\u0101 g\u016btos pier\u0101d\u012bjumus, un nav pie\u013caujams secin\u0101jumu par zaud\u0113jumu es\u012bbu un c\u0113lo\u0146sakar\u012bbu izdar\u012bt, balstoties uz pie\u0146\u0113mumiem. <\/b>\u0160aj\u0101 liet\u0101 apskat\u012btais apst\u0101klis \u2013 pied\u0101v\u0101juma nepamatoti zema cena \u2013 var b\u016bt \u0161\u0137\u0113rslis pretendenta uzvarai. Tom\u0113r tiesas secin\u0101jums, ka \u0161\u0101ds \u0161\u0137\u0113rslis patie\u0161\u0101m konkr\u0113taj\u0101 gad\u012bjum\u0101 past\u0101v\u0113tu, ir balst\u0101ms pien\u0101c\u012bg\u0101 faktisko apst\u0101k\u013cu un procesa dal\u012bbnieku paskaidrojumu nov\u0113rt\u0113jum\u0101, nevis vien\u012bgi pie\u0146\u0113mum\u0101, ka tas, iesp\u0113jams, var\u0113tu past\u0101v\u0113t. Apgalvojums, ka pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jam b\u016btu radu\u0161\u0101s \u0161aubas par cenas pamatot\u012bbu, pat ja tas ir ticami, nav pietiekams pamats secin\u0101t, ka pied\u0101v\u0101jums b\u016btu atz\u012bstams par nepamatoti l\u0113tu un ka t\u0101d\u0113\u013c tas b\u016btu no iepirkuma izsl\u0113dzams.<\/b> (05.10.2018. SKA-1330\/2018<\/b>) Ar\u012b cit\u0101 liet\u0101 tika izskat\u012bts jaut\u0101jums par zaud\u0113jumu apr\u0113\u0137inu. Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js bija lauzis iepirkuma l\u012bgumu un \u0161is l\u0113mums tika atz\u012bts par prettiesisku, attiec\u012bgi pieg\u0101d\u0101t\u0101js iesniedza pieteikumu par mantisko zaud\u0113jumu atl\u012bdzin\u0101\u0161anu un starp pus\u0113m izv\u0113rt\u0101s str\u012bds par zaud\u0113jumu apjomu. Ar detaliz\u0113tu izkl\u0101stu aicinu iepaz\u012bties pa\u0161\u0101 spriedum\u0101, bet \u012bsum\u0101 AT atzina par pareizu, ka apgabaltiesa veica apr\u0113\u0137inu, vadoties no visp\u0101r\u0113j\u0101s rentabilit\u0101tes attiec\u012bgaj\u0101 gad\u0101, k\u0101 ar\u012b pieg\u0101d\u0101t\u0101ja iesp\u0113jas atteikties no pakalpojuma snieg\u0161anas visp\u0101r\u012bg\u0101s vieno\u0161an\u0101s ietvaros, attiec\u012bgi pras\u012bjums netika apmierin\u0101ts piln\u0101 apm\u0113r\u0101. (30.10.2018. SKA-518\/2018<\/b>) Ja ir interese par zaud\u0113jumu un sagaid\u0101mas pe\u013c\u0146as atr\u0101vuma instit\u016btu izpratni, tam AT piev\u0113rsusies ar\u012b liet\u0101, kur pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja p\u0101rjaunojusi pieg\u0101des l\u012bgumu ar citu pieg\u0101d\u0101t\u0101ju. (12.11.2018. SKC-219\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n L\u012bguma neizpilde:<\/b> piev\u0113r\u0161oties iepirkuma l\u012bguma izpildei no civilties\u012bbu aspekta, k\u0101d\u0101 liet\u0101 pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jas pras\u012bba ties\u0101 par l\u012bgumam atbilsto\u0161u pre\u010du pieg\u0101di vai iepriek\u0161\u0113j\u0101 st\u0101vok\u013ca atjauno\u0161anu tika noraid\u012bta pirmaj\u0101s div\u0101s instanc\u0113s. Tom\u0113r AT \u0146\u0113ma v\u0113r\u0101 pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja skaidrojumus un cita starp\u0101 nor\u0101d\u012bja, ka apel\u0101cijas instances tiesas atzinums konkr\u0113taj\u0101 situ\u0101cij\u0101, ka PIL nepie\u013cauj ne iepirkuma proced\u016br\u0101, ne jau iepirkuma l\u012bguma izpildes laik\u0101 groz\u012bt pied\u0101v\u0101jumu, nav pamatots ar likuma norm\u0101m. PIL 671.pant\u0101 (iepriek\u0161\u0113j\u0101 PIL redakcija) tie\u0161i noteikti gad\u012bjumi, kad ir pie\u013caujama iepirkuma l\u012bguma vai visp\u0101r\u012bg\u0101s vieno\u0161an\u0101s groz\u012b\u0161ana. Ta\u010du no p\u0101rs\u016bdz\u0113t\u0101 tiesas sprieduma nav secin\u0101ms, kuras likuma normas nepie\u013cauj par iepirkuma finan\u0161u pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 nor\u0101d\u012bto cenu pieg\u0101d\u0101t cita ra\u017eot\u0101ja svarus, kas atbilstu iepirkuma nolikum\u0101 izvirz\u012btaj\u0101m pras\u012bb\u0101m, t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di izpildot ar nosl\u0113gto vieno\u0161anos uz\u0146emt\u0101s saist\u012bbas. (24.10.2018. SKC-135\/2018) Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jiem b\u016btu v\u0113rts piev\u0113rst uzman\u012bbu civillietai, kur\u0101 b\u016bvdarbu veic\u0113js ir l\u016bdzis piedz\u012bt no pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja zaud\u0113jumus, kas radu\u0161ies d\u012bkst\u0101ves d\u0113\u013c (iemesls \u2013 b\u016bvat\u013cauju apstr\u012bd\u0113\u0161ana). Apgabaltiesa pras\u012bbu atzina, apel\u0101cijas instance noraid\u012bja, savuk\u0101rt AT \u0161o spriedumu atc\u0113la un lietu nodeva jaunai izskat\u012b\u0161anai sprieduma motiv\u0101cij\u0101 iek\u013caut\u0101 pamatojuma tr\u016bkumu d\u0113\u013c. (27.07.2018. SKC-157\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n 1. Nol\u0113mumus iesp\u0113jams atrast https:\/\/manas.tiesas.lv\/eTiesasMvc\/nolemumi<\/a>, lauk\u0101 \u201cMekl\u0113t nol\u0113muma tekst\u0101\u201d nor\u0101dot attiec\u012bgo numuru, k\u0101 ar\u012b AT m\u0101jaslap\u0101.\u21a9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" AT atg\u0101dina, ka, ja ar konkr\u0113tiem argumentiem ap\u0161aub\u012bta pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101s inform\u0101cijas atbilst\u012bba tehniskajai specifik\u0101cijai, par pietiekamu pier\u0101d\u012bjumu atbilst\u012bbai neb\u016btu atz\u012bstams uzvar\u0113t\u0101jas tehnisk\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101juma apraksts (pied\u0101v\u0101juma forma), jo tas nor\u0101da vien\u012bgi uz pretendenta uzskatu par savu pied\u0101v\u0101jumu, bet pats par sevi neapliecina t\u0101 satura patiesumu. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11365"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11367,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365\/revisions\/11367"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nIesnieguma papildin\u0101\u0161ana<\/b>: Iesniedz\u0113js saist\u012bb\u0101 ar metu konkursu v\u0113rs\u0101s Iepirkumu uzraudz\u012bbas biroj\u0101 (IUB), nor\u0101dot uz p\u0101rk\u0101pumiem izv\u0113rt\u0113\u0161an\u0101, un uzskat\u012bja, ka jaut\u0101jums par \u017e\u016brijas komisijas kompetenci bija prezum\u0113jams. Tom\u0113r AT nor\u0101da, ka person\u0101m, kuras uzskata, ka ir noticis p\u0101rk\u0101pums, ir uzreiz (likum\u0101 noteiktaj\u0101 s\u016bdz\u012bbas iesnieg\u0161anas termi\u0146\u0101) j\u0101nor\u0101da uz konkr\u0113tu p\u0101rk\u0101pumu un apst\u0101k\u013ciem, kuru d\u0113\u013c ir pamats \u0161o p\u0101rk\u0101pumu konstat\u0113t. IUB, izskatot iesniegumu, ir saist\u012bts ar iesniegum\u0101 nor\u0101d\u012bto p\u0101rk\u0101puma pamatu, t.i., apst\u0101k\u013ciem par noteikt\u0101 veid\u0101 izpaudu\u0161os p\u0101rk\u0101pumu. T\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di IUB nebija j\u0101p\u0101rbauda t\u0101di iesp\u0113jamie p\u0101rk\u0101pumi, uz kuriem nebija nor\u0101d\u012bts s\u016bdz\u012bb\u0101.<\/b> Pret\u0113ji pieteic\u0113ju uzskatam IUB no s\u016bdz\u012bbas nebija pamata prezum\u0113t, ka liet\u0101 aktu\u0101ls ir ar\u012b jaut\u0101jums par \u017e\u016brijas komisijas sast\u0101vu. Apst\u0101k\u013ci, kas saist\u012bti ar pied\u0101v\u0101jumu nov\u0113rt\u0113\u0161anu, nav autom\u0101tiski un nesaraujami saist\u012bti ar \u017e\u016brijas komisijas sast\u0101va tiesiskumu, jo nav pamata uzskat\u012bt, ka ikvien\u0101 gad\u012bjum\u0101 neatbilst\u012bbas pied\u0101v\u0101jumu v\u0113rt\u0113\u0161an\u0101 rastos t\u0101d\u0113\u013c, ka \u017e\u016brijas komisijas sast\u0101vs ir prettiesisks. Pieteic\u0113jas ar\u012b nepamatoti uzskata, ka pien\u0101kums p\u0101rbaud\u012bt \u017e\u016brijas komisijas sast\u0101va tiesiskumu izriet\u0113ja no objekt\u012bv\u0101s izmekl\u0113\u0161anas principa. IUB, iev\u0113rojot objekt\u012bv\u0101s izmekl\u0113\u0161anas principu, ir pien\u0101kums sniegt v\u0113rt\u0113jumu ar\u012b t\u0101diem apst\u0101k\u013ciem, uz kuriem nav bijis nor\u0101d\u012bts s\u016bdz\u012bb\u0101, bet kurus IUB, v\u0101cot pier\u0101d\u012bjumus un noskaidrojot apst\u0101k\u013cus saist\u012bb\u0101 ar s\u016bdz\u012bbu, ir konstat\u0113jis pats. Tom\u0113r tas nenoz\u012bm\u0113, ka IUB b\u016btu pien\u0101kums p\u0113c savas iniciat\u012bvas p\u0101rbaud\u012bt piln\u012bgi visus faktus saist\u012bb\u0101 ar iepirkumu, kaut ar\u012b iesniedz\u0113js to nav l\u016bdzis. (13.07.2018. SKA-605\/2018<\/b>)<\/p>\n