In the week that Roy Hodgson announced the squad that will be travelling to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, we thought we would get into the spirit of things by selecting a team of public procurement cases that we think would have a chance of taking on the world (or at least would do better than limping out in the second round on penalties to [Germany/Italy/Portugal]* [delete as appropriate]).
So, who made the cut?
Goalkeeper: Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] EWCA Civ 13
In the white hot atmosphere of a World Cup, an experienced goalkeeper is a must. Therefore, we have gone right back to the start of modern procurement case law and selected Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club. Some may argue it is more contract law than procurement law, but if our team is going to have a chance of victory we have to cast the net as wide as possible. This case even has its own Wikipedia page – what better foundation for the team could there be than that?!
Right back: Teleaustria Verlags GmbH and Telefonadress GmbH v Telekom Austria AG (Case-324/98)
The modern game requires full backs to pose an attacking threat. With this in mind we have selected Telaustria. It is doubtful we have seen many more attacking moves than this one to include contracts not covered by the regime within the wider scope of public procurement.
Centre backs: Teckal SRL v Comune de Viano (Case C-107/98) and Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-480/06)
It is important to have a good partnership in the heart of defence. Teckal and Hamburg waste dovetail beautifully to provide contracting authorities with a defence to a variety of challenges. A concern is that the young upstart Kreis Düren (Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren (Case C-386/11)) has suggested that it may upset the natural balance of these two cases.
Left back: Commission v Republic of Austria (Case C-212/02)
As with our right back, Alcatel is selected for its all out attacking play, which saw contracting authorities put on the back foot, unable to do anything but wait for challenges from unhappy tenderers.
Right wing: Emm.G. Lianakis AE and others v Dimos Alexandroupolis and others (Case C-532/06)
It is often said of creative players that if they do not know what they are going to do next, how can the opposition? If ever a public procurement case falls into this category it is Lianakis, the case that inspired 1,001 discussions (and the rest) about taking account of tenderer experience at award stage.
Central midfielders: Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v Republik Österreich (Case C-454/06) and Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben (Case-451/08)
In the centre of the park someone comfortable with dealing with changes in the game is required, guarding against the counter attack but also capable of getting forward to pose an attacking threat. Pressetext was the only sensible choice for this role, with its focus on variations to contracts and guidance on when a contracting authority can move forward and when it needs to start again.
For some time we saw Auroux (Jean Auroux and Others v Commune de Roanne (Case C-220/05)) as the natural midfielder partner with its disciplined approach, which brought contracting authorities and their development projects to a standstill. However, on recent form, Helmut Müller, with its freer spirit, has come to the fore and is selected.
Left wing: Letting International Ltd v London Borough of Newham [2008] EWHC 1583 (QB)
With Lianakis buccaneering down the right wing, it seems sensible to select Letting International, with its similar approach, to act in tandem on the other wing. However, there is still a good argument to revert to the more disciplined Varney (J Varney & Sons Waste Management Ltd v Hertfordshire County Council ([2011] EWCA Civ 708)), which has won more plaudits for its end result.
Strikers: Brent London Borough Council and others v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2011] UKSC 7 and Uniplex (UK) Limited v NHS Business Services Authority (Case C-406/08)
In form and high profile strikers are a must for any successful World Cup team. Look no further than Brent’s victory in the Supreme Court in LAML, a victory in the highest court in the land that places an emphasis on team work. But to complete the team, we have instead selected Uniplex, a decision that had such an impact that the law needed to be changed to deal with it.
All World Cup squad selections create some controversy. If you disagree with our selection, please feel free to submit a comment below. In the meantime, we are off to try and solve the problem of how you fit some of the case names above on the back of a football shirt.