Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
726.1-1 IVÖBAIMPCIAP CH-VS

Art. 1 Accord intercantonal sur les marchés publics (AIMP) - Objet

Objet, but et définitions
Ouvrir la source officielle Texte complet (65 Articles) Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Art. 1 AIMP · Objet

1. Le présent accord s’applique à la passation de marchés publics par les adjudicateurs qui lui sont assujettis, que ces marchés soient soumis ou non aux accords internationaux.

Accord intercantonal sur les marchés publics (AIMP) - Objet Art. 2 AIMP →

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cette disposition s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez ce texte législatif avec la jurisprudence, la doctrine et les dispositions connexes dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (6)

A1 20 68 · vs (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. d IVöB)
Appeal Regarding Improper Contract Award Procedure and Bid Disclosure
Cited in the reasoning, but not in the dispositive.
A1 17 51 · vs (art. 1 al. 3 let. b AIMP)
Public Works Contract Award Cancellation Due to Material Quantity Discrepancy in Tender Documents
Cited in the reasoning as a basis for guaranteeing equal treatment, which was violated.
A1 17 51 · vs (art. 1 al. 3 let. c AIMP)
Public Works Contract Award Cancellation Due to Material Quantity Discrepancy in Tender Documents
Cited in the reasoning as the basis for the transparency requirement, which was violated.
A1 16 107 · vs (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)
Administrative Contract Award Appeal Over Artificial Turf Renewal
Violation of the transparency requirement led to the annulment of the award decision.
RVJ 2016 p 25 30 · vs (art. 1 al. 3 let. c AIMP)
Procurement Evaluation Methodology and Transparency Violation
Cited in the reasoning section as the basis for the transparency requirement that mandates prior communication of sub-criteria and their weighting.
A1 13 230 · vs (Art. 1 Abs. 3 IVöB)
Municipality Contract Award Overturned Due to Severe Procedural Violations in Selective Procurement
Cited in the reasoning to support the conclusion that the violation of the transparency requirement (Art. 1 Abs. 3 IVöB) necessitated the annulment of the award.