Why the reform, and why now
Public procurement accounts for roughly EUR 2.5 trillion per year in the European Union — about 14–16 % of the Union's GDP. Yet the Commission's evaluation report of October 2025 concluded that the 2014 directives had met their objectives only in part: legal certainty had not improved, red tape persisted, and cross-border participation of suppliers remained low.
Geopolitical factors add to this: unclear rules on access of third-country entities (particularly from China) to the Union procurement market. Building on the Draghi report on competitiveness and other strategic documents, the Commission therefore drafted an entirely new instrument. Its two main goals: to simplify procurement and to strengthen strategic procurement, with emphasis on the "Made in Europe" criterion.
From three directives to a single regulation
The key change is the replacement of three separate directives — the classic directive (2014/24/EU), the utilities directive (2014/25/EU) and the concessions directive (2014/23/EU) — with a single regulation of 149 articles across 7 parts.
The decisive difference lies in the legal form. A regulation is directly applicable in all Member States and requires no transposition into national law. The directive on defence and security procurement (2009/81/EC) remains untouched, and research and development contracts will be excluded from the regulation's scope and moved to the newly proposed European Innovation Act.
European preference: a new tool against third-country suppliers
One of the most striking features is the European preference mechanism. It allows — and in some cases requires — contracting authorities to take into account the origin of suppliers, goods, services and works. It can be applied in three ways:
- restricting the pool of participants to Union or so-called covered entities (from states with a market-access agreement),
- requiring a minimum share of Union origin in the performance delivered,
- favouring tenders of Union origin within the award criteria.
The Commission would additionally gain the power, through delegated acts, to exclude "non-covered" suppliers entirely from specific procedures where the strategic interests of the Union so require. The legal basis is CJEU case law — the judgments in C-652/22 (Kolin) and C-266/22 (CRRC Qingdao), according to which the principles of Union procurement law do not apply to third-country entities lacking international commitments towards the Union. Market openness is thus now expressly conditioned on reciprocity.
For contracts concerning critical infrastructure, sensitive information and cybersecurity, the regulation further requires active management of security risks (e.g. security clearances, NIS 2 compliance, encryption) and diversification of supply chains.
Fewer procedures, greater emphasis on quality
The proposal reduces the number of main procurement procedures from five to three: the open procedure, the dynamic purchasing system (for standardised purchases) and the innovation procedure (for developing new solutions). These are not entirely new types but a simplification and greater flexibility of the rules.
Also significant is the mandatory quota for qualitative criteria: a minimum weight of 30 %, rising to 50 % for contracts with a high share of human labour (services, consulting). The aim is to move away from the practice of chasing the lowest price and to strengthen the role of quality, social aspects and sustainability.
What it means for Czech law
Adoption of the regulation would have a fundamental impact on Act No. 134/2016 Coll., on public procurement. Most of its provisions would become redundant, since the regulation will apply directly. Only the rules on national review procedures (the powers of the Office for the Protection of Competition — ÚOHS — and judicial review) and, where relevant, defence procurement would remain in force.
When to prepare
The regulation now awaits negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council. Its expected entry into force is 2029. That leaves contracting authorities, suppliers and their advisers time to prepare — but given the scale of the changes, it is worth following the legislative process from the outset.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. The legal framework evolves; we recommend verifying the current wording of the regulations and thresholds before a specific transaction.
