Alina Bilan a prezentat vineri, 20 martie, in cadrul primei editii a Conferintei Noi Perspective in Dreptul Constructiilor, rezultatele studiului realizat impreuna cu Bazil Oglinda, privind rolul bunei credinte in interpretarea sub-clauzei 20.1. din cadrul contractelor FIDIC.
Articolul analizeaza continutul si forma Instiintarii de revendicare ce trebuie transmisa de Antreprenor Inginerului in termen de 28 de zile pentru a fi indreptatit la extinderea duratei de execuție a unei lucrari publice sau la plati suplimentare.
Studiul analizeaza si situatiile care apar uneori in practica executarii contractelor FIDIC si care pot impiedica Antreprenorul sa transmita notificarea de revendicare in forma si termenul prevazut in sub-clauza 20.1., precum si modul in care influenteaza aceste situatii sanctiunea nerespectarii clauzei.
Noutatea abordarii pe care o propun Alina Bilan si Bazil Oglinda consta in faptul ca recomanda organelor jurisdictionale sa aiba in vedere principiului bunei credinte si a celui conform caruia nimeni nu isi poate invoca propria culpa in sustinerea intereselor sale, inainte de a decide daca aplica Antreprenorului sanctiunea decaderii din dreptul la extinderea duratei de executie a unei lucrari si/sau la plati suplimentare. Puteti gasi prezentarea sustinuta de Alina Bilan aici.
[:en]
Alina Bilan explained, at the first edition of New Perspectives in Construction Law Conference in Bucharest, how good faith play a key role in the interpretation of sub-clause 20.1 of FIDIC contracts. Her input relies on a study conducted jointly with Bazil Oglinda earlier this year.
The study (to be published) analyzes the content and form of the Notice of Claim that must be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer within 28 days, for the former to be entitled to an extension of the execution period of a public work or to additional payments.
The study also analyzes several instances in which Contractors of FIDIC contracts may be unable to notify Engineers in the appropriate form and by the due date mentioned in sub-clause 20.1, and explains how these situations influence the Non-compliance Penalty Clause.
Compatibility of this sub-clause with Romanian law has been a key sub-topic in the study.
The novelty of the approach proposed by Alina Bilan and Bazil Oglinda lies in the recommendation for jurisdictional bodies to consider: a) the principle of good faith and b) the principle by which no one may invoke their own guilt in their own interest, before deciding whether to apply sanctions to Contractors for lack of notification in due course, or to extend the execution period of the public work involved and/or to allow for additional payments. Alina Bilan’s presentation may be accessed here.
[:]