THE Bulgartabac deal is back in limbo.
The Supreme Administrative Court on Tuesday annulled the decision of the Privatisation Agency to choose Tobacco Capital Partners and Clar Innis B.V. as the successful bidder in the privatisation of Bulgartabac Holding.
The court instructed the Privatisation Agency (PA) to proceed with the privatisation procedure. According to experts, this meant that the PA should require a one-off review of the offers for Bulgartabac.
The agency had the right to terminate the current privatisation procedure, lawyers commented.
The decision of the court is subject to appeal.
The court said the PA had admitted violations of administrative and procedural regulations, and the provisions of the Privatisation and Post-Privatisation Control Act regarding ensuring economically expedient privatisation.
The court rejected as unfounded the other complaints of the petitioners, Tobacco Holding, Consortium Metatabac and Consortium Rosbulgartabac.
The PA press office said the agency would decide on a course of action after studying the court's grounds for its decision, and would base this action on the relevant legislation, the press office said.
Three consortiums were admitted to the final round of the privatisation procedure for Bulgartabac - Tobacco Capital Partners-Clar Innis, Rosbulgartabac and Tobacco Holding. Metatabac also filed an offer but it was disqualified.
The PA named Tobacco Capital Partners-Clar Innis as successful bidder on August 23.
When the parameters of the final offers were announced, all bidders confirmed that they were ready to increase them if asked to do so by the PA.
The Cabinet instructed the PA to rank the offers without launching a procedure for an increase of their parameters.
The court ruled that the PA had failed to comply with a provision of the Ordinance on Tenders by not demanding a one-time increase of offered prices from the bidders because of favourable changes in the financial condition of the company, pending privatisation.
Rosbulgartabac representatives said they accepted the court's ruling as reasonable.
The Supreme Administrative Court on Tuesday annulled the decision of the Privatisation Agency to choose Tobacco Capital Partners and Clar Innis B.V. as the successful bidder in the privatisation of Bulgartabac Holding.
The court instructed the Privatisation Agency (PA) to proceed with the privatisation procedure. According to experts, this meant that the PA should require a one-off review of the offers for Bulgartabac.
The agency had the right to terminate the current privatisation procedure, lawyers commented.
The decision of the court is subject to appeal.
The court said the PA had admitted violations of administrative and procedural regulations, and the provisions of the Privatisation and Post-Privatisation Control Act regarding ensuring economically expedient privatisation.
The court rejected as unfounded the other complaints of the petitioners, Tobacco Holding, Consortium Metatabac and Consortium Rosbulgartabac.
The PA press office said the agency would decide on a course of action after studying the court's grounds for its decision, and would base this action on the relevant legislation, the press office said.
Three consortiums were admitted to the final round of the privatisation procedure for Bulgartabac - Tobacco Capital Partners-Clar Innis, Rosbulgartabac and Tobacco Holding. Metatabac also filed an offer but it was disqualified.
The PA named Tobacco Capital Partners-Clar Innis as successful bidder on August 23.
When the parameters of the final offers were announced, all bidders confirmed that they were ready to increase them if asked to do so by the PA.
The Cabinet instructed the PA to rank the offers without launching a procedure for an increase of their parameters.
The court ruled that the PA had failed to comply with a provision of the Ordinance on Tenders by not demanding a one-time increase of offered prices from the bidders because of favourable changes in the financial condition of the company, pending privatisation.
Rosbulgartabac representatives said they accepted the court's ruling as reasonable.
