The case shows how an interim suspension request can seek to stop contract signatures while a public procurement challenge is being considered.
Appeal court leaves tender moving
Lithuania’s Court of Appeal on 7 September left unchanged a 23 June decision by the Panevėžys Regional Court. The earlier ruling rejected a request from the Latvian companies Liepājas autobusu parks and NordBus to temporarily suspend a large passenger bus transport tender issued by Vilnius City Municipality. The appeal therefore did not alter the immediate position: the municipality is not barred by this litigation from proceeding towards contracts in the parts covered by the application. The source does not report a finding that either side acted unlawfully in the procurement, nor does it describe a final ruling on the tender’s underlying merits.
What the requested measure would have done
The Latvian companies asked the court to impose an interim measure: to stop the competition temporarily and prohibit the capital’s authorities from signing contracts in three of the tender’s four lots. Such a request is narrower and more immediate than a final challenge to an award. It seeks to preserve the position while the dispute is examined, by preventing contracts from being signed before the court has decided whether intervention is justified. Here, both the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal declined that temporary step. The tender’s division into lots means a challenge can be directed at specified portions rather than necessarily stopping every part of the procedure.
A ruling on suspension, not proof of wrongdoing
The decision matters to suppliers because an unsuccessful interim suspension request does not, by itself, establish that a procurement complied with every legal requirement. It means that the courts cited in the report did not accept the request to halt the process at this stage. Nor does the report state what grounds the Latvian businesses advanced beyond seeking the suspension, or whether a separate claim on the substance of the tender remains to be determined. For contracting authorities, the case illustrates that a tender may continue towards signature in the absence of a temporary prohibition. For bidders, it shows the practical importance of identifying the precise lots and the immediate harm that an interim measure is intended to prevent.
IN NUMBERS
The Court of Appeal’s decision keeps Vilnius’s bus tender moving, while the reported proceedings concern the requested temporary protection rather than a final finding on the procurement’s legality.
Reported from 15min.lt, 2026-09-09. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
