We would like to congratulate our Senior Partner and Head of Litigation Department Panos N. Panayiotou and our Associate Lawyer Maria Prokopiou for successfully representing our client PROTON MEDICAL (CYPRUS) LTD in a Recourse before the Administrative Court.
The Administrative Court, in its ruling dated February 7, 2025, upheld Recourse No. 1479/2024 filed by PROTON MEDICAL (CYPRUS) LTD (the “Applicant”) and annulled the decision of the Tenders Review Authority (TRA), which had rejected the Applicant’s Hierarchical Recourse. The Applicant had challenged a decision by the Health Insurance Organization (HIO) that excluded it from the tender process for the supply of insulin pumps, including related consumables, under the General Healthcare System (GHS).
The Court, accepting the Applicant’s arguments, ruled in favor of the Recourse, finding that the unexplained failure to invite the third member of the Specifications Drafting Committee to certain meetings constituted a violation of the law concerning the lawful composition of the collective body, as well as a breach of the obligation to maintain accurate and complete records. The Court held that the Committee is an institutionalized body required to adhere to the principles of administrative law.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the Applicant’s claim regarding the failure to obtain approval from the HIO Board of Directors for the appointment of the Evaluation Committee, as required by the applicable Regulations. Upon reviewing the relevant memorandum submitted to the HIO Board and its minutes, the Court concluded that the TRA’s finding—that the appointment decision, although not recorded in the minutes, could be inferred as having been made—was unfounded. Specifically, the Court determined that no such decision was taken regarding the appointment of the Evaluation Committee members and that the decisions actually made during the relevant Board meeting were explicitly recorded in the minutes.
According to the Court’s ruling, the Evaluation Committee is one of the bodies authorized to handle tender-related matters leading to contract awards, and its members must be appointed by the Board of Directors. In the absence of such an appointment, any subsequent actions taken by the Evaluation Committee were ultra vires and unlawful.
Additionally, the Court accepted the Applicant’s argument that the TRA had failed to properly investigate its contention regarding the erroneous evaluation of its bid by the HIO.
Among other findings, the Court ruled that the TRA’s position—that such matters were of a technical nature and therefore not subject to judicial review—was incorrect. The Court concluded that the issues at hand did not concern purely technical matters but rather the interpretation of the tender terms and their application in the evaluation conducted by the HIO.
The case was successfully handled on behalf of the Applicant by the barristers Panos N. Panayiotou and Maria Prokopiou of CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOU & CO LLC – GCPLAW.
