The House of Representatives has enacted the 2025 Law Amending the Procedures for Review in the Field of Public Procurement Contracts, which introduces substantial changes to the main Law of 2010 (Law 104(I)/2010).
Increase of the financial threshold
With the amendment of Article 3(d) of the existing provisions, the value threshold of contracts is increased from €500,000 to €1,000,000. According to the explanatory memorandum of the law, this change readjusts the scope of the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Tenders Review Authority, aligning it with current economic conditions and the value of contracts awarded in the context of public procurement.
New framework for interim measures
The second significant amendment is found in Article 24, where a new paragraph (1A) has been added. According to this provision, any applicant requesting an interim measure is required to submit, together with the appeal form, a solemn declaration stating that they will provide a personal guarantee if the request is granted. If the Tenders Review Authority decides to grant an interim measure, the applicant must deposit the guarantee within five working days of the issuance of the decision.
The amount of the guarantee is set at 1% of the estimated value of the contract, with a maximum limit of €50,000, and where no estimated value is determined, at €10,000. Failure to deposit the guarantee within the prescribed time limit leads to the automatic cancellation of the interim measure. If the contracting authority’s decision is upheld, the guarantee becomes payable, while failure to pay constitutes a professional misconduct by the issuer of the guarantee. Conversely, when the appeal is upheld or withdrawn, the guarantee is returned within ten working days.
According to the explanatory memorandum, this addition aims to ensure the seriousness of requests for interim measures, avoiding the submission of appeals without sufficient legal basis or legitimate interest.
However, the intent to discourage tenderers from filing administrative appeals before the Tenders Review Authority is evident, which raises legitimate concerns: proceedings before the Tenders Review Authority are swift. Delays occur only when the award decision is annulled by the Authority. Since annulment means errors occurred during evaluation and award decision-making, discouraging tenderers from challenging awards seems unjustified.
On the contrary, appealing to the Administrative Court is particularly time-consuming, yet does not involve comparable financial burdens for the tenderer. Before the Administrative Court, if an interim order is issued prohibiting the signing of the contract (a measure granted very rarely by the Court, whereas it is generally granted by the Tenders Review Authority), the guarantee submitted by the tenderer is not automatically forfeited if the appeal fails. For the public authority to collect the amount of the guarantee, it must prove the damage suffered.
Absence of provision for successful appeals
Despite stricter requirements being introduced, the amendment does not include a provision for the case of a successful appeal. Specifically, it does not provide for the refund of appeal fees or for the coverage of the applicant’s legal costs where the Tenders Review Authority annuls the contracting authority’s decision. This omission creates a regulatory gap, as there is no provision for the recovery of expenses incurred by a successful appellant while exercising their rights. It also reveals that the legislator’s intent is to favor public authorities conducting tenders and to disadvantage tenderers, whereas the principle of equal treatment of the parties requires respect from the legislator as well.
The absence of such a provision differentiates the Cypriot framework from other European legal systems, where similar procedures provide for the possibility of fee reimbursement or cost awards in order to safeguard full and effective legal protection for economic operators.
Conclusion
According to the explanatory memorandum, the 2025 Amending Law aims to ensure procedural discipline and prevent unfounded or abusive appeals by introducing clear financial obligations for obtaining interim measures. However, the automatic forfeiture of the guarantee in case of an unsuccessful appeal and the lack of provisions for returning fees or costs in successful appeals highlight the need for further balancing of the institutional framework, so that the exercise of the right of appeal remains substantive and effective, in accordance with the principles of EU public procurement law and the principle that compensation is awarded where damage is proven.
For more information, please contact Katia Kakoulli (katia.kakoulli@demetriades.com) or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.