ARGUMENTS AGAINST DAMAGES AS A LEGAL REMEDY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCEEDINGS

The purpose of the article is to facilitate discussion regarding the lost profits as a legal remedy in public procurement cases. Although the issue regarding damages in public procurement procedure has been thoroughly researched before,1 this article is intended to outline some robust arguments that have not been discussed before, as far as it is known to the author. The article outlines two main arguments against the usage of the lost chance doctrine in public procurement cases: 1) although the lost profit is a widely recognized type of damages in civil law, it is misused in public procurement procedure; 2) awarding lost profits in public procurement cases leads to unfair and even immoral results. The article presents several examples from the Latvian administrative court practice and therefore yields an insight into the existing situation on this matter in Latvia. Whereas the article produces arguments against the use of the lost profit as a type of damage, it is neither disputed nor elaborated that the search for other effective legal remedies should be considered instead of lost profits.