Articulation of legal remedies in public procurement litigation at the initiative of third parties to the contract.

Summary In parallel with the gradual formation of a "public procurement law", litigation initiated by third parties to the contract has undergone a profound change, to such an extent that the paradigm shift that has taken place tends to give rise to what could be called "public procurement litigation". Various legal avenues more or less specialized in sanctioning the administration's behavior in the face of the requirements of public procurement have therefore been instituted. Pre-contractual summary proceedings, contractual summary proceedings and appeals challenging the validity of the contract are the archetypal forms of public procurement litigation. The criminal judge and the financial judge also indirectly ensure that the obligations of advertising and competitive bidding incumbent on the administration are respected. The judge of the excess of power, as well as the administrative judge seized following a prefectoral referral, aim to ensure that this aspect of contractual legality is respected. The multiplicity of legal remedies available to the ousted competitor, a privileged third party, leads one to wonder about his "embarrassment of choice" or his "embarrassment altogether" in making use of them. It also implies to be interested in the effective protection of his right to have participated in a consultation procedure in the respect of the principles of freedom of access to the public order, of equal treatment of the candidates and of transparency of the procedures of awarding. The complexity of the litigation of the public order at the initiative of the third parties to the contract is such that it is impossible to be satisfied with it and results in destroying to rebuild this litigation landscape.