Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Against the Grain? Member State Interests and EU Procurement Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Between Compliance and Particularism

  • 572 Accesses

Abstract

EU public procurement law has been increasingly criticised for the restrictions it places on Member States’ regulatory autonomy and for the imposition of neoliberal conceptions of State intervention in the economy that do not necessarily match the general preferences of Member States with a social market economy orientation. Following that view, it could be thought that there is a limited (and possibly narrowing) space for Member State interests in EU public procurement law—or, in other words, that pursuing national interests goes against the grain of the internal market foundations of the 2014 Public Procurement Package. The purpose of this chapter is to dispel this conception by making three points. First, that despite its competition-orientedness, the 2014 Public Procurement Package does not impose a “one-size-fits-all” straitjacket on domestic economic systems, but is rather compatible with diversity of economic models at national level. A series of complex trade-offs resulting from the last revision of the EU public procurement rules, where Member State interests played a multifaceted role, have consolidated a competition-based model with significant flexibility for non-market and non-competed mechanisms, as repeatedly tested before and confirmed by the Court of Justice. Second, that EU public procurement law, however, does appropriately prevent Member States from pursuing protectionist policies, even if they consider them to be in their national interest—quod non, because the proper working of the internal market is both in the collective interest of the EU and of the individual Member States. Third, that EU public procurement law, in particular in its current incarnation in the 2014 Public Procurement Package, emphasises the ability of Member States to pursue secondary policies (such as the promotion of innovation or sustainability) in a diverse manner, in accordance with their domestic interests and local particularism. On the whole thus EU public procurement law allows Member States significant space to pursue their national interests, always provided that they are also compatible with their own interest in the proper functioning of the internal market.

This chapter has been developed in the context of the international research network of the Lendület-HPOPs Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, hpops.tk.mta.hu. I am grateful to Dr Márton Varju for useful comments to a previous draft. All opinions are personal and do not represent those of the institutions with which I am affiliated. Any mistakes are my sole responsibility. Comments welcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Judgment of 15 October 2009, Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden, C-138/08, EU:C:2009:627, paragraph 47.

  2. 2.

    Judgment of 10 October 2013, Manova, C-336/12, EU:C:2013:647, paragraph 28.

  3. 3.

    Arguably, this has been the case in the area of free movement of persons, Jimena Quesada (2017). Cf. Judgment of 11 November 2014, Dano, C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358.

  4. 4.

    The 2014 Public Procurement Package comprises Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, [2014] OJ L94/1; Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, [2014] OJ L94/65; and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, [2014] OJ L94/243.

  5. 5.

    Member State interests played a multifaceted role; see Caranta (2015), Ølykke and Sanchez-Graells (2016).

  6. 6.

    See the chapter by Varju and Czina of this book, and below Sect. 3.

  7. 7.

    To be sure, this does not mean that the current situation is desirable and, in my view, EU public procurement law is affected by some inconsistencies that I have criticised elsewhere from a normative perspective. However, de lege data, the EU public procurement system offers space for diverse national approaches.

  8. 8.

    Judgment of 28 January 2016, CASTA, C-50/14, EU:C:2016:56. See also Judgment of 11 December 2014, Spezzino, C-113/13, EU:C:2014:2440.

  9. 9.

    This is in line with the requirement for Member States to adopt adequate legislative and regulatory frameworks in the context of the provision of services of general economic interest. See Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415.

  10. 10.

    Judgment of 11 December 2014, Spezzino, C-113/13, EU:C:2014:2440, paragraph 53.

  11. 11.

    Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, [2014] OJ L94/65.

  12. 12.

    See Judgment of 11 January 2005, Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau, C-26/03, EU:C:2005:5, paragraph 51; Judgment of 19 June 2014, Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal and SUCH, C-574/12, EU:C:2014:2004, paragraphs 38 and 40.

  13. 13.

    See Judgment of 8 December 2016, Undis Servizi, C-553/15, EU:C:2016:935.

  14. 14.

    See Judgment of 21 December 2016, Remondis, C-51/15, EU:C:2016:985.

  15. 15.

    Judgment of 2 June 2016, Falk Pharma, C-410/14, EU:C:2016:399.

  16. 16.

    Of course, this does not apply to exceptional interventions in the context of economic crises, where the EU Institutions have clearly intervened to put pressure on Member States to change their economic model if it was seen as preventing recovery and/or threatening the stability of the European economy as a whole. This issue, however, is analytically different and its assessment exceeds the possibilities of this chapter.

  17. 17.

    See the chapter by Varju and Czina in this book.

  18. 18.

    This is, of course, plainly clear in the context of Brexit. However, it is also clear that the national interest and the acceptance of EU law is multifaceted and requires complex trade-offs in an overall assessment.

  19. 19.

    For the purposes of the discussion, whether the pursuit of “value for money” stems from obligations under EU law or from an independent choice by the Member States is irrelevant, as my claim is that all Member States will always have an interest in extracting best value for money spent through procurement.

  20. 20.

    Judgment of 14 June 2007, Medipac – Kazantzidis, C-6/05, EU:C:2007:337.

  21. 21.

    Judgment of 27 October 2005, Contse, C-234/03, EU:C:2005:644.

  22. 22.

    See the seminal Judgment of 22 June 1993, Commission v Denmark (Storebaelt), C-243/89, EU:C:1993:257.

  23. 23.

    On the topic of State aid, see the contribution by De Cecco to this book.

  24. 24.

    Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, [1997] OJ L18/1.

  25. 25.

    On this, see the contribution by Papp to this book.

  26. 26.

    See also the chapter by Hungler in this book.

  27. 27.

    Judgment of the Court 18 September 2014, Bundesdruckerei, C-549/13, EU:C:2014:2235, paragraph 34.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of 17 November 2015, RegioPost, C-115/14, EU:C:2015:760.

  29. 29.

    That, of course, does not mean that they cannot be criticised; see Sanchez-Graells (2018b).

  30. 30.

    Judgment of 22 October 2015, Impresa Edilux and SICEF, C-425/14, EU:C:2015:721.

  31. 31.

    Judgment of 10 May 2012, Commission v Netherlands, C-368/10, EU:C:2012:284, paragraphs 102–108.

  32. 32.

    See e.g., Judgment of 28 March 1995, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Evans Medical and Macfarlan Smith, C-324/93, EU:C:1995:84. See also Judgment of 5 December 1989, Commission v Italy, C-3/88, EU:C:1989:606.

References

  • Allerkamp, D. (2016). The EU legislative process. An introduction from a political science perspective. In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 193–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., Kovacic, W. E., & Müller, A. C. (2016). Promoting competition and deterring corruption in public procurement markets: Synergies with trade liberalisation. In E15 Expert Group on Competition Policy and the Trade System. Think piece. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-Competition-Anderson-Kovacic-Muller-Final.pdf

  • Arrowsmith, S. (2011). The EU procurement regime – objectives and overview. In S. Arrowsmith et al. (Eds.), EU public procurement law: An introduction. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pprg/documentsarchive/asialinkmaterials/eupublicprocurementlawintroduction.pdf

  • Arrowsmith, S. (2012). The purpose of the EU procurement directives: Ends, means and the implications for national regulatory space for commercial and horizontal procurement policies. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrowsmith, S. (2015). Rethinking the approach to economic justifications under the EU’s free movement rules. Current Legal Problems, 68, 307–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulai, L. (2013). The European Court of Justice and the duty to respect sensitive national interests. In M. Dawson, B. De Witte, & E. Muir (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 167–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2018). Fair’s fair: Public procurement, posting and pay. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 195–213). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea, J. (2015). Text and telos in the European Court of Justice. Four recent takes on the legal reasoning of the ECJ. European Constitutional Law Review, 11, 184–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeger, N. (2018). Public procurement and business for value: Looking for alignment in law and practice. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 115–137). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caranta, R. (2010). Sustainable public procurement in the EU. In R. Caranta & M. Trybus (Eds.), The law of green and social procurement in Europe (pp. 15–52). Copenhagen: DJØF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caranta, R. (2015). The changes to the public contract directives and the story they tell about how EU law works. Common Market Law Review, 52, 391–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caranta, R. (2016). After Spezzino (C-113/13): A major loophole allowing direct awards in the social sector. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casalini, D. (2012). Beyond EU law: The new “public house”. In C. Tvarnø, G. S. Ølykke, & C. Risvig Hansen (Eds.), EU public procurement, modernisation growth and innovation (pp. 151–178). Copenhagen: DJØF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: Reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016a). Commission Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [2016] OJ C262/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016b). Buying green! A handbook on green public procurement (3rd ed.). Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/Buying-Green-Handbook-3rd-Edition.pdf

  • Fanøe Petersen, C., & Ølykke, G. S. (2016). The provision on services of general economic interest in the 2014 directive. Pure reiteration of the obvious? In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 193–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Höpner, M., & Schäfer, A. (2012). Embeddedness and regional integration: Waiting for Polanyi in a Hayekian setting. International Organization, 66, 429–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimena Quesada, L. (2017). Social rights in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The opening to the Turin process. Paper delivered to the Conference on Social rights in today’s Europe: The role of domestic and European Courts, Nicosia, 24 February 2017. Retrieved January 2, 2018, from https://rm.coe.int/168070391d

  • Koutrakos, P., Nic Shuibhne, N., & Syrpis, P. (Eds.). (2016). Exceptions from EU free movement law. Derogation, justification and proportionality. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunzlik, P. (2013). Neoliberalism and the European public procurement regime. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 15, 283–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ølykke, G. S. (2016). The provision on abnormally low tenders: A safeguard for fair competition? In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 146–169). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ølykke, G. S. (2017). Commission notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU – Is the conduct of a public procurement procedure sufficient to eliminate the risk of granting State aid? Public Procurement Law Review, 26, 197–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ølykke, G. S., & Sanchez-Graells, A. (Eds.). (2016). Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procurement of Innovation Platform. (2016). Guidance for Public Authorities on Public Procurement of Innovation. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.innovation-procurement.org/fileadmin/editor-content/Guides/PPI-Platform_Guide_new-final_download.pdf

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2012). Public procurement and State aid: Reopening the debate? Public Procurement Law Review, 21, 205–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2013). The Commission’s modernisation agenda for procurement and SGEI. In E. Szyszczak & J. W. van de Gronden (Eds.), Financing services of general economic interest. Reform and modernization (pp. 161–181). The Hague: TMC Asser Press/Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2015). Public procurement and the EU competition rules (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016a). A deformed principle of competition? The subjective drafting of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24. In G. S. Ølykke & A. Sanchez-Graells (Eds.), Reformation or deformation of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 80–100). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016b). Truly competitive public procurement as a Europe 2020 lever: What role for the principle of competition in moderating horizontal policies? European Public Law Journal, 22, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016c). Competition and State aid implications of the Spezzino judgment (C-113/13): The scope for inconsistency in aid assessments for voluntary organisations providing public services. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2016d). Digging itself out of the hole? A critical assessment of the Commission’s attempt to revitalise State aid enforcement after the crisis. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 4, 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2018a). Regulatory substitution between labour and public procurement law: The EU’s shifting approach to enforcing labour standards in public contracts. European Public Law Journal, 24, 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Graells, A. (2018b). Competition and State aid implications of ‘public’ minimum wage clauses in EU public procurement after Regiopost. In A. Sanchez-Graells (Ed.), Smart public procurement and labour standards. Pushing the discussion after RegioPost (pp. 93–114). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter, W. (2015). Public services in EU law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter, W., & Schepel, H. (2009). State and market in European Union law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schooner, S. L. (2002). Desiderata: Objectives for a system of government contract law. Public Procurement Law Review, 11, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semple, A. (2016). The link to the subject-matter: A glass ceiling for sustainable public contracts? In B. Sjåfjell & A. Wiesbrock (Eds.), Sustainable public procurement under EU law. New perspectives on the state as stakeholder (pp. 50–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjåfjell, B., & Wiesbrock, A. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainable public procurement under EU law. New perspectives on the state as stakeholder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrpis, P. (2007). EU intervention in domestic labour law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak, E., & Sanchez-Graells, A. (2014). Modernising social services in the single market: Putting the market into the social. In J. M. Beneyto & J. Maillo (Eds.), Fostering growth: Reinforcing the internal market (pp. 61–88). Madrid: CEU Ediciones.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telles, P. (2016). The impact of Spezzino for third sector organisations. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 11, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, P. (2004). Regulating procurement. Understanding the ends and means of public procurement regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, P. (2012). The contracting authority as purchaser and regulator. Should the procurement rules regulate what we buy? In G. S. Ølykke, C. Risvig, & C. Tvarnø (Eds.), EU procurement, modernisation, growth and innovation (pp. 85–106). Copenhagen: DJØF.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2012). Competition policy and public procurement. Retrieved January 22, 2017, from http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ciclpd14_en.pdf

  • Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bristol, Law School, Bristol, UK

    Albert Sanchez-Graells

Authors
  1. Albert Sanchez-Graells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert Sanchez-Graells .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Marton Varju

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sanchez-Graells, A. (2019). Against the Grain? Member State Interests and EU Procurement Law. In: Varju, M. (eds) Between Compliance and Particularism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation