{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","title":"KHO:2017:110 - Offentlig upphandling","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iQrSXLiDy5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kho2017110-offentlig-upphandling\/\">KHO:2017:110 &#8212; Offentlig upphandling<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kho2017110-offentlig-upphandling\/embed\/#?secret=iQrSXLiDy5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abKHO:2017:110 &#8212; Offentlig upphandling\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"iQrSXLiDy5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Marknadsdomstolen hade medan besv\u00e4r \u00f6ver ett upphandlingsbeslut var anh\u00e4ngiga kunnat pr\u00f6va besv\u00e4r \u00f6ver ett beslut om upphandlingsr\u00e4ttelse, genom vilket upphandlingsbeslutet hade undanr\u00f6jts och upphandlingsf\u00f6rfarandet hade avbrutits och, sedan marknadsdomstolen avslagit de sistn\u00e4mnda besv\u00e4ren, besluta att med anledning av de besv\u00e4r som anf\u00f6rts \u00f6ver upphandlingsbeslutet inte meddela n\u00e5got avg\u00f6rande i sak, detta med h\u00e4nvisning till att..."}