Public procurement: Are some employer tax evaders more equal than others?

Amendments to the Public Procurement Law require contracting authorities to rule a bid’s price unjustifiably low if the employees of a tenderer or a subcontractor earn less than 80% of the average hourly rate in a particular occupation. That is, the contracting authority will assume that such bidders evade employer taxes. Katrine Plavina argues that a potential assessment of the Constitutional Court will depend on the application of the new amendments. However, if nothing will change, the contracting authorities will not exclude from procurements those bidders, who in accordance with the logic of the provisions, are evading employer’s tax but nevertheless pay more than 80% of the average hourly rate. Click here to read the full article in Latvian published in legal weekly Jurista Vārds.

by Katrīne Pļaviņa, Senior Associate, Latvia

Related Lawyers

Gints Vilgerts

Partner, M&A

+371 29 107 768


Jūlija Jerņeva


+371 29 131 597


Related Experience

Defended a department store before the Consumer Rights Protection Centre in alleged price display breach for loyal customers.

Helped an energy company to explore ways of overturning the regulators ruling that the transmission system operator was not independent of its shareholders. The main challenge in the case was focusing on the fiduciary duties of the client’s management in managing the company while the shareholders are creating a conflict of interest and compliance risks.

Successfully defending owner of an airport hangar against claim brought by construction company regarding the owner’s refusal to pay for the defective construction works. On 14 January 2019 the district court adopted a judgement in favour of the client, which became effective as of 5 February 2019.

Representing an aviation company in an ongoing litigation regarding the repayment of investments. The company who received the funds later transferred its’ business in several coordinated transactions to a related company, and thereafter became insolvent. The client brought a claim against the recipient of the borrower’s business pursuant to Article 20 of Commercial Law.