Czech governnment and the rate of public contracts awarded without competitive procedure? Position of Czech republic in comparation with other EU member states? Detailed information and summary of overall conclusion you can find in the latest Good Governance analysis.

Publikováno: 06.12.2016

Autor: Lukáš Wagenknecht

Téma: Boj proti korupci Články, komentáře a prohlášení Evropská unie


The content of the analysis you can find here 13030226_s


According to the results of the study of the European Commission „The EU Single Market Scoreboard of July 2016 the Czech Republic belongs long time among countries which have a high rate of public procurement contracts awarded without any competition. In 2013 the European average of contracts awarded without a competition was 7.4% while according to the study the Czech Republic’s share of contracts awarded without a competition was 22% out of all contracts awarded. In the years 2014 – 2015 the EU average was 6.6% while in the Czech Republic, the ratios were 18%, respectively 19%.

The average value of the share of negotiated procedures without publication used for award of contracts by the Czech government for the last three years is 17.3%. In 2016 a negative trend in the increase of the use of negotiated procedures without publication can be observed as at the end of September 2016 the value of the expenditure „tendered“ through negotiated procedures without publication is 19.4% of the total expenditure incurred by central government authorities.

According to the upcoming analyses of EconLab z.s. association is under revision of the Office of Protection of Competition only 0,8 % of the negotiated procedure without publication. This rate is four time less than in case of revision of the most used open tendering procedure. The possibility for revision of not tendered cases is significantly restricted in comparison with other tendering procedures.

 Legitimacy of the negotiated procedure without publication cases is significantly under lower supervision. Public procurers are due to system approach motivated to abuse tendering procedure via procedure without tendering because they reduce risk of any complaints, possible delay in tendering process and related public criticism.


Based on the evaluation of analytical data and assessment of new legislation it is clear that the central governmental bodies in the Czech Republic for a long time award contracts without any publicly announced competition in a value that is several times higher than the average of the EU.

Based on a common practice in the implementation of large scale projects by the Czech political representation, the approach applied is in violation of procedures stated in the European directive on public procurement since the very beginning of the project itself. To illustrate this phenomenon below there are listed a few specific examples of implementation of projects with obvious violations of the public procurement rules, EU directives and national law by the Czech governmental bodies. The sad thing is that some of these bodies are engaged in the implementation of the EU funds in the Czech republic and Ministry of Regional Development is even responsible for the transposition of the EU public procurement directives into Czech legislation, in other words it should be the guardian of correct application of the public procurement rules in the Czech republic.

It is more than said that supreme public administration body, the government of the Czech republic, according to the quote of the minister of Transport took the initiative to breach of the Act on public tendering law „I am following the line which the government obliged me to pursue, indeed, the government adopted the resolution that we have to immediately take all steps to finalise and conclude the agreement and I made those steps.

Law enforcement in the area of public procurement on the side of the state and its agencies is very low. One of the reasons is the inefficient system of applying administrative fines by the Office of Protection of Competition which is in its result only fictional moving of funds between different chapters of the state budget. Personal responsibility, accountability and recovery of payments on specific individuals are not applied in practice in most cases.