{"id":3893,"date":"2014-05-28T11:55:44","date_gmt":"2014-05-28T09:55:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/?p=3893"},"modified":"2014-09-09T08:30:29","modified_gmt":"2014-09-09T06:30:29","slug":"piedavajuma-neieklautas-informacijas-pieprasisana","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/?p=3893","title":{"rendered":"Pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 neiek\u013cautas inform\u0101cijas piepras\u012b\u0161ana"},"content":{"rendered":"

Praks\u0113 nereti rodas probl\u0113mas, nosakot robe\u017eu, kad pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja piepras\u012bt\u0101 inform\u0101cija ir uzskat\u0101ma par skaidrojumu jau iesniegtai inform\u0101cijai un t\u0101p\u0113c pie\u013caujama, un kad t\u0101 v\u0113rt\u0113jama k\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101juma groz\u012b\u0161ana, kas ir vienl\u012bdz\u012bbas principa p\u0101rk\u0101pums. Ar pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja piepras\u012bjumu izskaidrot iesniegto inform\u0101ciju saprotama ne tikai, piem\u0113ram, gramatikas vai ac\u012bmredzamu k\u013c\u016bdu pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 izlabo\u0161ana, bet ar\u012b t\u0101das inform\u0101cijas piepras\u012b\u0161ana, kas no pied\u0101v\u0101juma nep\u0101rprotami neizriet. Lai ilustr\u0113tu \u0161o apgalvojumu viena tiesved\u012bbas procesa ietvaros, situ\u0101ciju var\u0113tu model\u0113t sekojo\u0161i:
\n
\n1. Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js izsludina b\u016bvdarbu iepirkumu.
\n2. Pretendenti A<\/strong> un B<\/strong> iesniedz pied\u0101v\u0101jumu konkurs\u0101.
\n3. Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js pie\u0146em l\u0113mumu pie\u0161\u0137irt iepirkuma izpildes ties\u012bbas pretendentam A<\/strong>.
\n4. Pretendents B<\/strong> apstr\u012bd konkursa rezult\u0101tus Iepirkumu uzraudz\u012bbas biroj\u0101.
\n5. Iepirkumu uzraudz\u012bbas biroja s\u016bdz\u012bbu izskat\u012b\u0161anas komisija s\u016bdz\u012bbu atz\u012bst par nepamatotu un at\u013cauj pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jam sl\u0113gt l\u012bgumu ar pretendentu A<\/strong>.
\n6. Pretendents B<\/strong> iesniedz pieteikumu Administrat\u012bvaj\u0101 rajona ties\u0101, l\u016bdzot atz\u012bt IUB l\u0113mumu par prettiesisku, vienlaic\u012bgi l\u016bdzot pagaidu noregul\u0113jumu \u2013 aptur\u0113t IUB l\u0113muma darb\u012bbu.
\n7. Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js nosl\u0113dz l\u012bgumu ar pretendentu A<\/strong>.
\n8. Tiesa noraida pieteikumu par pagaidu noregul\u0113jumu, jo ar l\u012bguma nosl\u0113g\u0161anas br\u012bdi p\u0101rs\u016bdz\u0113tais administrat\u012bvais akts \u2013 IUB l\u0113mums \u2013 ir izpild\u012bts, t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di zaud\u0113jis sp\u0113ku.
\n9. T\u0101 k\u0101, izpildot IUB l\u0113mumu, vairs nav administrat\u012bv\u0101 akta, k\u0101 darb\u012bbu aptur\u0113t, skatot lietu p\u0113c b\u016bt\u012bbas, tiesa v\u0113rt\u0113 tikai administrat\u012bv\u0101 akta (IUB l\u0113muma) tiesiskumu.
\n10. Tiesa, skatot B<\/strong> pieteikumu p\u0113c b\u016bt\u012bbas, to apmierina un atz\u012bst, ka IUB l\u0113mums ir prettiesisks.
\n11. Pretendents A<\/strong> turpina pild\u012bt jau nosl\u0113gto iepirkuma l\u012bgumu, kur\u0161 saska\u0146\u0101 ar IUB l\u0113mumu tiesiski nosl\u0113gts un nav atce\u013cams.
\n12. Pretendents B<\/strong>, pamatojoties uz tiesas spriedumu, kur\u0101 atz\u012bts, ka IUB l\u0113mums ir bijis prettiesisks, gatavojas celt pras\u012bbu par zaud\u0113jumu atl\u012bdz\u012bbu.
\n13. Administrat\u012bv\u0101s rajona tiesas spriedums nest\u0101jas sp\u0113k\u0101, jo Pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js, nol\u016bk\u0101 izvair\u012bties no potenci\u0101lo zaud\u0113jumu riska, iesniedz kas\u0101cijas s\u016bdz\u012bbu.
\n14. Augst\u0101k\u0101 tiesa atz\u012bst, ka Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa, taisot spriedumu, pie\u013c\u0101vusi ties\u012bbu normu p\u0101rk\u0101pumus, to atce\u013c un nodod lietu jaunai izskat\u012b\u0161anai.
\n15. Skatot lietu no jauna, Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa B<\/strong> pieteikumu noraida un atz\u012bst, ka IUB l\u0113mums bijis tiesisks.<\/p>\n

Str\u012bdus b\u016bt\u012bba<\/strong><\/p>\n

Konkursa nolikuma tehnisk\u0101s specifik\u0101cijas pras\u012bb\u0101s iek\u013cauts noteikums, ka in\u017eeniersist\u0113mas iek\u0101rtai ir j\u0101b\u016bt ar noteiktu darba temperat\u016bras amplit\u016bdu. Pretendenta pied\u0101v\u0101jums \u0161\u0101du tie\u0161u nor\u0101di nesatur. Lai izv\u0113rt\u0113tu pied\u0101v\u0101juma atbilst\u012bbu tehnisk\u0101s specifik\u0101cijas pras\u012bb\u0101m, iepirkuma komisija nolemj nos\u016bt\u012bt v\u0113stuli pretendentam A<\/strong>, lai tas izskaidro tehniskaj\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 iek\u013cauto inform\u0101ciju, proti, vai iek\u0101rtas darba temperat\u016bra atbilst tehniskaj\u0101 specifik\u0101cij\u0101 noteiktajai. P\u0113c apstiprino\u0161as atbildes sa\u0146em\u0161anas pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101js pretendenta A<\/strong> pied\u0101v\u0101jumu atz\u012bst par atbilsto\u0161u nolikuma pras\u012bb\u0101m. Pretendenta A<\/strong> pied\u0101v\u0101jums ir ar\u012b saimnieciski visizdev\u012bg\u0101kais, t\u0101p\u0113c A<\/strong> tiek atz\u012bts par uzvar\u0113t\u0101ju konkurs\u0101. Pretendents B <\/strong>iesniedz s\u016bdz\u012bbu IUB, pamatojot, ka ticis p\u0101rk\u0101pts vienl\u012bdz\u012bgas attieksmes princips un A<\/strong> b\u016bt\u012bb\u0101 ir groz\u012bjis savu s\u0101kotn\u0113jo pied\u0101v\u0101jumu, kas faktiski noz\u012bm\u0113 jauna pied\u0101v\u0101juma izteik\u0161anu. IUB s\u016bdz\u012bbu izskat\u012b\u0161anas komisija atz\u012bst, ka pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja r\u012bc\u012bba, pieprasot skaidrojumu situ\u0101cij\u0101, kad pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jam nav viennoz\u012bm\u012bgi saprotams, vai pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101 inform\u0101cija ietver iepirkuma dokumentos noteikt\u0101s pras\u012bbas, nav prettiesiska. T\u0101 k\u0101 piepras\u012bt\u0101 inform\u0101cija attiecas uz pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 jau iek\u013cautu inform\u0101ciju, IUB iesniegumu izskat\u012b\u0161anas komisija at\u013cauj pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jam sl\u0113gt l\u012bgumu ar A<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

K\u0101 v\u0113rt\u0113jams skaidrojums par tehniskaj\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 neiek\u013cautu inform\u0101ciju?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u0160aj\u0101 gad\u012bjum\u0101 nav str\u012bda par to, ka A pied\u0101v\u0101jums tie\u0161\u0101 tekst\u0101 nesatur nor\u0101di par iek\u0101rtu darba temperat\u016bras robe\u017e\u0101m. Taj\u0101 pa\u0161\u0101 laik\u0101 konkursa nolikum\u0101 ir noteiktas pras\u012bbas par iek\u0101rtu atbilst\u012bbu noteiktiem ra\u017eo\u0161anas standartiem. A pied\u0101v\u0101jums satur atsauces uz nor\u0101d\u012btajiem standartiem, t\u0101p\u0113c t\u0101 atbilst\u012bba pras\u012bb\u0101m par iek\u0101ru darba temperat\u016bru netie\u0161i izriet no \u0161iem standartiem. T\u0101 k\u0101 nolikum\u0101 nav noteikta forma, k\u0101d\u0101 pretendentam j\u0101sniedz tehniskais pied\u0101v\u0101jums, izvirz\u012bt\u0101s tehnisk\u0101s pras\u012bbas var\u0113tu b\u016bt ietvertas ar\u012b, atsaucoties uz noteiktiem standartiem, kuros ietverti pras\u012btie tehniskie parametri.<\/p>\n

Uzdodot jaut\u0101jumu pretendentam A, t\u0101 m\u0113r\u0137is nebija ieg\u016bt k\u0101du papildu inform\u0101ciju, kas nav ietverta pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101, bet noskaidrot, vai iesniegtaj\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ir ietvertas konkr\u0113t\u0101s tehnisk\u0101s pras\u012bbas, kas taj\u0101 nav nor\u0101d\u012btas tie\u0161\u0101 tekst\u0101. <\/p>\n

A, atbildot uz v\u0113stuli, nesniedz papildu inform\u0101ciju, lai groz\u012btu s\u0101kotn\u0113jo pied\u0101v\u0101jumu, bet sav\u0101 atbild\u0113 apstiprina, ka pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ir iek\u013cauta inform\u0101cija par min\u0113taj\u0101m tehniskaj\u0101m pras\u012bb\u0101m. <\/p>\n

Lietas izv\u0113rt\u0113\u0161anai tiek piesaist\u012bt ar\u012b speci\u0101listi \u2013 nozares eksperti, lai sniegtu atzinumus liet\u0101. Tom\u0113r tie nav iepazinu\u0161ies ar standartiem, uz ko pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 atsauc\u0101s pretendents A un no kuriem var\u0113ja izsecin\u0101t pied\u0101v\u0101t\u0101s iek\u0101rtas atbilst\u012bbu. Ar\u012b speci\u0101listi nor\u0101da, ka pied\u0101v\u0101jums nesatur tie\u0161u apgalvojumu, ka iek\u0101rtas darba temperat\u016bra ir tehniskaj\u0101 specifik\u0101cij\u0101 noteiktaj\u0101s robe\u017e\u0101s. Taj\u0101 pa\u0161\u0101 laik\u0101 tie atz\u012bst, ka no uzvar\u0113t\u0101ja pied\u0101v\u0101juma netie\u0161a atbilst\u012bba par iek\u0101rtu temperat\u016br\u0101m izsecin\u0101ma no pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101 saraksta ar valst\u012bm, kur\u0101m veikta iek\u0101rtu pieg\u0101de.<\/p>\n

Izv\u0113rt\u0113jot apst\u0101k\u013cus, Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa B pieteikumu atz\u012bst par pamatotu, savus secin\u0101jumus balstot ar to, ka A pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 nav sniegtas nolikum\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101to iek\u0101rtu darba temperat\u016bras robe\u017eas un no ekspertu atzinumiem izriet l\u012bdz\u012bgi secin\u0101jumi. <\/p>\n

Tiesas pien\u0101kums pier\u0101d\u012bjumus p\u0101rbaud\u012bt objekt\u012bvi un piln\u012bgi<\/strong><\/p>\n

Saska\u0146\u0101 ar Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likuma 103. panta otro da\u013cu tiesa administrat\u012bvaj\u0101 proces\u0101, pildot savus pien\u0101kumus, pati objekt\u012bvi noskaidro lietas apst\u0101k\u013cus un dod tiem juridisku v\u0113rt\u0113jumu. Savuk\u0101rt saska\u0146\u0101 ar min\u0113t\u0101 likuma 107. panta ceturto da\u013cu, lai pras\u012bjuma robe\u017e\u0101s noskaidrotu patiesos lietas apst\u0101k\u013cus un pan\u0101ktu tiesisku un taisn\u012bgu lietas izskat\u012b\u0161anu, tiesa dod administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa dal\u012bbniekiem nor\u0101d\u012bjumus un ieteikumus, k\u0101 ar\u012b sav\u0101c pier\u0101d\u012bjumus p\u0113c savas iniciat\u012bvas (objekt\u012bv\u0101s izmekl\u0113\u0161anas princips).<\/p>\n

Atbilsto\u0161i objekt\u012bv\u0101s izmekl\u0113\u0161anas principam, tiesas pien\u0101kums ir nodro\u0161in\u0101t, ka ar liet\u0101 sav\u0101ktajiem pier\u0101d\u012bjumiem pietiek, lai tiesas r\u012bc\u012bb\u0101 b\u016btu piln\u012bga un ticama inform\u0101cija, kas tai nepiecie\u0161ama, lai, izskatot lietu, p\u0101rbaud\u012btu administrat\u012bv\u0101 akta tiesiskumu (sk. Augst\u0101k\u0101s tiesas 2006. gada 14. marta sprieduma liet\u0101 Nr. SKA-15\/2006 9. punktu). <\/p>\n

Savuk\u0101rt Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likuma 154. panta pirm\u0101 da\u013ca noteic, ka tiesa nov\u0113rt\u0113 pier\u0101d\u012bjumus p\u0113c savas iek\u0161\u0113j\u0101s p\u0101rliec\u012bbas, kas pamatojas uz vispus\u012bgi, piln\u012bgi un objekt\u012bvi p\u0101rbaud\u012btiem pier\u0101d\u012bjumiem, k\u0101 ar\u012b vadoties no tiesisk\u0101s apzi\u0146as, kas balst\u012bta uz lo\u0123ikas likumiem, zin\u0101tnes atzi\u0146\u0101m un taisn\u012bbas principiem. No \u0161\u012bs ties\u012bbu normas izriet, ka tiesai savi secin\u0101jumi j\u0101izdara tikai p\u0113c tam, kad pier\u0101d\u012bjumi ir vispus\u012bgi, piln\u012bgi un objekt\u012bvi p\u0101rbaud\u012bti (sk. Augst\u0101k\u0101s tiesas 2005. gada 5. apr\u012b\u013ca sprieduma liet\u0101 Nr. SKA-73\/2005 13. punktu).<\/p>\n

Izskatot kas\u0101cijas s\u016bdz\u012bbu, Augst\u0101k\u0101 tiesa atz\u012bst, ka tas, ka speci\u0101listi nav iepazinu\u0161ies ar min\u0113tajiem standartiem, var\u0113ja ietekm\u0113t to sniegt\u0101 atzinuma secin\u0101jumus. Administrat\u012bv\u0101s rajona tiesas secin\u0101jums, par to, ka eksperti atzinu\u0161i, ka no pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101s inform\u0101cijas ar\u012b netie\u0161i nebija izsecin\u0101ms, ka pied\u0101v\u0101to iek\u0101rtu darba temperat\u016bra ir attiec\u012bgaj\u0101s robe\u017e\u0101s, ir bez pietiekama pamatojuma.<\/p>\n

Konstat\u0113jot ties\u012bbu normu p\u0101rk\u0101pumus, Augst\u0101k\u0101 tiesa lietu nodod jaunai izskat\u012b\u0161anai, kas IUB l\u0113mumu atz\u012bst par tiesisku. T\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di secin\u0101ms, ka skaidrojuma iesnieg\u0161ana situ\u0101cij\u0101, kad pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101jam nav viennoz\u012bm\u012bgi saprotams, vai pied\u0101v\u0101jum\u0101 ietvert\u0101 inform\u0101cija aptver iepirkuma dokumentos noteikt\u0101s pras\u012bbas, ir tiesiska. <\/p>\n

AUTORE: IEVA \u008aEFERE, juriste, ZAB Borenius<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Praks\u0113 nereti rodas probl\u0113mas, nosakot robe\u017eu, kad pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja piepras\u012bt\u0101 inform\u0101cija ir uzskat\u0101ma par skaidrojumu jau iesniegtai inform\u0101cijai un t\u0101p\u0113c pie\u013caujama, un kad t\u0101 v\u0113rt\u0113jama k\u0101 pied\u0101v\u0101juma groz\u012b\u0161ana, kas ir vienl\u012bdz\u012bbas principa p\u0101rk\u0101pums. Ar pas\u016bt\u012bt\u0101ja piepras\u012bjumu izskaidrot iesniegto inform\u0101ciju saprotama…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,43],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3893"}],"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=3893"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3893\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4305,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3893\/revisions\/4305"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zurnalsiepirkumi.lv\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}