We were asked on 2nd February 2007 to explain our supply. The time for preparing our explanation was less than 24 hours. Even though we proposed our explanation in time, only few hours after its delivering on 3rd August 2007, we were secreted out of competition. Alike in other cases this was also the incident were there was besides us only one other applicant with considerably more inconvenient supply and price. Probably this applicant is personal connected with the sponsor of Faculty.
On 6th August 2007 we asked for amendment and for our new arrange to assessment.
On 13th August 2007 we received a letter from public acquisition, following text:
We have sent you an official answer to your application request and we have disapproved it with convenient reasons.
In your application for amendment on your web-site you blame us for nonstandard action and for personal connection with public acquisition. You also mention a false affirmation about more inconvenient supply from the second applicant (we do not believe you are not able to count it simply). As it is a material calumny we require apologize and immediate removing of false affirmations from your web-site.
Please, consider this e-mail as pacific form how to eliminate our misunderstanding. In other case we would consider judicial way with aim to protect the good name of Pavol Josef Šafárik´s University in Košice and the Scientific faculty as well.
To this attitude we can allege that according to decoding criteria we would acquire 79 points and the other applicant 26 points. We consider such point dividing as material difference and in acquisition meaning our supply as material convenient.
We require also an explanation of supply that has no anchoring in law about public acquisition with time less than 24 hours, minimum it is nonstandard action. We would be pleased to talk about personal connection between applicant’s attendant and sponsorship of acquisition in case of judicial proceeding.
Public acquisition did not accept our request for amendment. That is why a caveat has been submitted. Office for public acquisition complied and ordered UPJŠ to re-arrange EUREA to public acquisition process. Even though UPJŠ have decided to cancel public acquisition and in their own words to assure activities from own resources.
According to our internal information, in January 2008 investigator from District headquarters of judicial and crime police in Košice, prosecution in case of crime machination in public acquisition and public auction. His finding was canceled from site of duty procurator and neither superior procurator has changed the decision. Nowadays proceed this cause Constitutional Court SR.
Car withdrawing is kind of punishment for drivers of bad parked cars. In Bratislava Old Town has this habit a long history. Nowadays arrived an absurd situation. There is a conclusion of The High Court that says car withdrawing administered by a private organisation is in antagonism with actual legislative SR. The tricky thing is that the private business continues. Also exists a rule of General Attorney SR that it is a crime to give conditional payment to drivers otherwise they will not return the car to them. Even though it is a hard persecution crime, there is assistance of national police guard by picking up the car necessary.
On the background of the persecution announcement has District principality investigator of judicial and crime police in Bratislava begun the persecution in case of hard persecution crimes, ignoring of public agent´s juridic authority.
We hope either the judgement of general prosecutor and conclusion of The High Court or prosecution will assure competent people that constant law-breaking is in Slovakia not accepted.
On June 7, 2007 The Slovak National Library, which is seated in Martin, released a tender notice „Technical Assistance in Administration and Implementation of the Project: Creating a Network with Information Interconnection of Scientific, Academic and Special Libraries Including Their Modernization.“ We find the criteria of the participation in the procurement to be discriminatory and at variance with the Slovak law on public procurement. The required praxis of an organization (since 2001) has no support in law, and neither does the required experience with the implementation of contracts and the required praxis of the experts.
We filed a request for redress concerning a tender document, which, however, wasn´t accepted by the contracting authority. Therefore we filed an objection, which the Office for Public Procurement satisfied and ordered this public procurement to be cancelled.
Academia Istropolitana advertised on its web site on 31st May 2007 challenge for applies in direction with the public procurement. This public procurement appertains monitoring of their national projects ESF. We received the competitive backgrounds late on 7th June 2007. Even though we applied for them right on the day of advertising the challenge, 31st May 2007. Right in this moment the public procurement processing contravened legalities.
Even though those corrective resources were submitted, Academia Istropolitana did not extend the offer applying period. AI opened offers in ambivalence with the statements from the competitive backgrounds. The second applicant outreached the finance limit of the order, but until now he was not secreted.
It was a subliminal method of public procurement and so it is not possible to protest against the acting of Public procurement agency. But we proposed to investigate the processes of professional capable person. In case of unlawful affirmation, the person will be devoid of the professional capable person status. We will apply for control from the side of major state organ, Ministry of educational system. We will also consider the possibility of complaint because of suspicion of fact that they committed a crime, meaning §266 Criminal code (machination by public procurement in communal auction.
Ministry for public procurement could not decide about debarment of the professional capable person because of deficient competence in subject controlling. In their attitude alleged breach of Law about public procurement.
On the 27th June 2007 was the public procurement abolished. Even though the reason of public procurement canceling was the cardinal change of circumstances, short time after canceling was announced new public procurement with very similar conditions as the previous. Small changes were in contribution criteria and were aligned so we could not fulfill them. Our application for correction was not accepted. Convener did not keep the legal date of sending the enrollment from the envelopes opening as well.
Similar as in the first case, there were only 2 firms which attend the procurement. Even though the company claimed that there are minimum 15 firms which could attend this project. The whole consecution history arouses suspicion that the procurement was led with the aim of winning the affined firm. Without consideration on better economical expedience and legal demands.
From September 2007 District Directorate of Judicial and Criminal Police in Bratislava IV. administrate prosecution in case of committing a crime of machination by public procurement and communal auction. Examiner proposed to cancel the prosecution because of allegation of abusive persons. District prosecutor decided on continuing of the prosecution and commanded further probation.
In order to prompt solving this situation, EUREA undertook several steps. Firstly, we filed a request at the respective court to issue payment order, which would force the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic to pay out its debts. The court satisfied the request, the Ministry however appealed, and so currently we are waiting for the trial.
We also tried to gain the data about the actual delay in payment requests processing in this Ministry. On the basis of the Act on Free Access to Information we asked for the data on the number of applications that haven´t been processed within the period for request disposition. The Ministry by its decision refused to provide this information with the argument that it has no such information at its disposal. By this, the Ministry de facto claims that it doesn´t have information on when the organizations filed the payment requests. Against this decision we filed an extraordinary remedy, in which we expressed our objections that the Ministry has this information at its disposal, if in no other form than at least in the correspondence book where the payment requests filed by the applicants are registered.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education of the Slovak Republic confirmed in the appellate process the decision of the first instance. This way he came in for a nomination for the enemy of information of the year 2007, where he occupies honorary third place.