Thank you for attending the conference and contributing to a rich and thoughtful discussion. To ensure that the insights shared do not fade with the event itself, we believe it is important to keep the conclusions of our speakers available to all participants and the wider community. In that spirit, we have prepared a short summary of their key views, accompanied by their presentation slides for further reference. We are also pleased to announce that a selection of the full papers presented here will be published in a special issue of the Collected Papers of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law in late 2026.

Panel: A Look Ahead - Remedies

At the Public Procurement Remedies Panel, we heard a rich and layered discussion on some of the most urgent issues in EU public procurement enforcement.

Professor Carina Risvig Hamer opened the panel with a detailed overview of what makes remedies systems truly effective and where the EU framework could be improved. After outlining the mechanisms under the current Remedies Directives - including standing rules, time limits, interim measures, automatic suspension, ineffectiveness and compensation - she examined the uneven landscape across Member States. Some systems produce thousands of complaints annually while others remain almost dormant, raising questions about accessibility and incentives. She noted that direct awards remain the most serious breach, but that borderline practices such as misclassified in-house contracts, underestimated values, or excessive contract modifications equally undermine procurement integrity. While the ongoing EU review of the procurement directives explicitly excludes the Remedies Directives, she argued that this exclusion is increasingly problematic. She pointed to long-standing gaps identified in past evaluations - unclear interactions between the Remedies Directives and the 2014 procurement package, the need to streamline time limits, clarify standstill rules, and improve data - and suggested that these areas will require renewed attention.

Professor François Lichère then explored whether damages could become a new paradigm for enforcing procurement law. He noted that while Article 2 of the Remedies Directive requires Member States to provide for damages, EU case law on damages has historically been scarce. The 2024 Ingsteel judgment, which recognised damages for loss of opportunity, represents a significant expansion of the concept. Yet he cautioned that relying on private enforcement through damages poses challenges: litigation is lengthy, outcomes are uncertain, and competitors may not be motivated to pursue claims even when they have legal grounds. For many Member States, especially those without strong traditions of damages litigation, shifting the enforcement burden toward private actions may not ensure better compliance. 

Dr. Bojana Todorović continued by highlighting how the sustainability of public procurement systems increasingly depends on meaningful access to remedies - not only for economic operators, but also for civil society. Drawing on examples from the South Eastern Europe, she showed how infrastructure projects, weak oversight mechanisms and strategic manipulation of procurement frameworks often leave environmental and social risks unaddressed. Because economic operators may lack incentives to challenge such practices, she argued that empowering civil society through broader standing is essential for closing the enforcement gap. She proposed rethinking “who, what and when” in review systems - who can bring a complaint, what types of acts can be challenged, and at which stage of the procurement process. In the context of the EU accession process, she emphasised that aligning with EU law must go hand-in-hand with enabling civil society to act as sustainability watchdogs.

Finally, Michael Frühmann provided a pragmatic reflection on the remedies landscape and the prospects for reform. He showed that while all Member States operate under essentially the same legal framework, the number of cases, duration of procedures, and types of review bodies vary dramatically. There is no clear correlation between institutional model, country size, or caseload, which underscores that remedies must be assessed in their specific national contexts. While the system “works” - more or less - he acknowledged that procedural rules in some Member States may create obstacles to effective access, such as upfront fees, mandatory legal representation, extensive written exchanges or repeated injunctions. He proposed several bold ideas for future improvement, including empowering public authorities to initiate ex officio review (a “procurement state attorney”), clearer and more harmonised rules on damages in light of Ingsteel, rethinking fee structures, and introducing indicative maximum procedural timeframes. At the same time, he noted that any deep reform would require Member States to accept limits on their procedural autonomy, a politically sensitive undertaking.

Together, the speakers painted a comprehensive picture of a remedies system at a crossroads: increasingly important for sustainability, accountability and trust in public procurement, yet uneven, procedurally complex and institutionally fragmented. Their insights underscored that while some improvements may be achieved in the upcoming revision of the procurement framework, others - especially those relating to remedies - will ultimately require a dedicated revision of the Remedies Directives, a process that the panelists agreed cannot come soon enough.

Panel: Reciprocity or Protectionism – Public Procurement and International Trade

The panel on third-countries’ participation explored how trade policy, foreign subsidies, and CJEU case law are reshaping access to EU procurement markets. 

Professor Christopher Yukins opened by examining how tariffs - particularly those used by the Trump administration - interact with procurement rules. He explained that while WTO GPA obligations generally prohibit discrimination, customs duties sit outside these non-discrimination rules, allowing countries to use tariffs strategically. In the U.S. system, imported supplies for federal procurement are normally subject to customs duties unless specific exemptions apply, making tariffs an embedded cost in procurement. He highlighted current U.S. legislative debate on duty-free entry for defense procurement, noting the tension between national security interests, trade reciprocity, and efforts to rebuild domestic industry.

Professor Piotr Bogdanowicz focused on the legal consequences of the Kolin and Qingdao judgments and their impact on Member States’ discretion regarding third-country bidders. While personally critical of these rulings, he showed how they have already shaped national practice, using Poland as an example. There, authorities have shifted from an overly permissive approach toward non-covered third-country bidders to a more protective stance, supported by new case law and legislative amendments. He presented recent Polish decisions - such as the Solaris and Doğuş cases - and discussed forthcoming guidance, including the Polish amendment allowing contracting authorities to specify whether non-covered third-country operators may participate. He also highlighted the Commission’s non-paper stressing that access rules fall under exclusive EU competence, raising rule-of-law concerns when Member States legislate independently.

Professor Désirée Klingler then turned to the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), setting out how it aims to level the playing field between EU and non-EU companies by screening foreign-subsidised bidders in large tenders. She explained the notification thresholds, the Commission’s review process, and emerging enforcement practice, including high-profile cases involving CRRC and Chinese renewable-energy companies that withdrew bids after scrutiny. She emphasised the significant administrative burden on companies, legal uncertainty around what constitutes a “foreign financial contribution,” and the risk of chilling cross-border R&D collaboration. Klingler also noted growing geopolitical tensions, including retaliatory measures and early signs of possible WTO litigation, as the EU increasingly uses procurement as a strategic policy tool.

Taken together, the panel illustrated a rapidly changing environment in which trade defence instruments, subsidy control, and judicial developments intersect. While the EU seeks reciprocity, fairness, and protection of strategic sectors, these tools generate complex legal questions, increased administrative burdens, and potential friction with global partners. The discussion underscored how procurement is evolving into a powerful instrument of economic, regulatory and geopolitical strategy, and how the balance between openness and protectionism will continue to challenge policymakers in the years ahead.

Panel: Green and Socially Responsible – New Approaches

The panel on sustainable procurement opened with Roberto Caranta, who set the scene by examining how EU public procurement law has gradually shifted from a system focused on market opening and competition toward one that more clearly embeds sustainability goals. He explained that the 2014 Directives created openings to integrate environmental and social considerations, but their design still leaves much discretion to contracting authorities and continues to hinge many choices on traditional concepts like “link to the subject matter.” Caranta argued that if the EU truly wants procurement to support the European Green Deal and broader sustainability objectives, the framework must evolve: sustainability choices should be protected against overly rigid competition-based objections, and outdated concepts such as subject-matter linkage should be reconsidered in light of modern needs like life-cycle focus and integrity rules. He underlined that future reform should support clear, mandatory sustainability pathways while still respecting national autonomy, and noted that civil society litigation is emerging as an important enforcement tool.

The discussion then turned to Sarah Schoenmaekers, who illuminated how procurement interacts with EU funding mechanisms and how those mechanisms shape the behaviour of national and subnational contracting authorities. She explained that while standard public procurement rules often do not mandate strategic or sustainability considerations, EU funds - both direct and indirect - are increasingly used as levers to encourage greener and more responsible choices. She detailed how the Financial Regulation and cohesion policy rules impose monitoring obligations, steering tools, and potential financial corrections when procurement rules are breached. These corrections can be significant, especially for issues such as misapplied award criteria or failures to implement sustainable procurement obligations linked to EU-funded projects. Through this funding architecture, Schoenmaekers showed, the EU effectively nudges national authorities toward sustainable practices even when the procurement directives themselves remain mostly permissive.

Finally, Eva Ružić concluded the panel by taking a broader conceptual and historical look at socially responsible public procurement (SRPP). She traced how procurement has evolved from a purely technical purchasing function to a vehicle for public value, drawing on administrative doctrines and welfare-state traditions that justify empowering weaker market actors and embedding social aims. Ružić emphasised that while soft-law instruments and the mandatory social clause in Article 18(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU offer important starting points, implementation across Member States remains uneven, hindered by institutional capacity, lack of reliable data, and risk aversion among contracting authorities. She noted that Croatia reflects many of these challenges: digitalisation has progressed, but socially responsible procurement remains underdeveloped. Looking forward, she highlighted the need for clearer measurement tools, better integration of social criteria, and an acknowledgment of the cultural and institutional conditions that shape how sustainability can realistically be embedded in procurement practice.

Panel: AI, Data and Modernization

The Data panel brought together four leading experts who examined the state and future of digitalisation and data use in EU public procurement. 

Albert Sánchez-Graells opened the discussion by highlighting that, despite the EU’s declared “full transition to e-procurement” in 2014, the expected benefits are still far from fully realised. He noted that many systems remain fragmented, user-unfriendly, and legally fragile, with unclear evidence on whether digitalisation has improved efficiency or, paradoxically, made some aspects more complicated. Drawing on OECD insights, he stressed the need to move beyond scattered pilot projects (“pilotitis”) and to establish a common vision, shared leadership, and solid data infrastructure. For him, the future lies in a coordinated strategy that treats procurement platforms as two-sided systems requiring better design, interoperability, skills development, and institutional commitment. Only then can the EU take advantage of advanced digital technologies and AI in a meaningful, legally robust way.

Tünde Tátrai continued by grounding the conversation in hard data, focusing on what the EU Public Procurement Data Space reveals about competition and efficiency. She explained that although some positive trends exist - more published procedures, more multilingual accessibility, and better data linkages - the overall picture remains ambivalent. Key indicators show persistent weaknesses, including high rates of single-bid procedures, missing award criteria, and widespread use of framework agreements with a single supplier. Data quality problems are particularly acute, with many contracting authorities failing to report essential information reliably. Tátrai emphasised that without consistent, complete, and comparable data, neither policymakers nor researchers can meaningfully assess the competitiveness or integrity of the procurement market. Her message was clear: before the EU can digitalise strategically, it must fix its data foundations.

Building on this, Petra Ferk examined digital transformation from a systemic perspective, reminding the audience that digitalisation is not merely a technical matter but a structural and political one. She explained that the current EU framework still incentivises “electronic compliance” rather than true digital transformation, leaving procurement procedures document-driven instead of data-driven. Her analysis revealed why the EU still lacks end-to-end digital procurement: the absence of machine-readable data, inconsistent standards across over 250 European platforms, and limited interoperability between national systems. Ferk outlined a shift from early electronic tools to an ambitious vision of eProcurement 4.0 based on automation, analytics, AI, cybersecurity, and smart contracts. Yet she warned that without political will, investment, coherent EU-wide standards, and improved data governance, Member States risk getting stuck in partial, fragmented digitalisation - producing short-term efficiency but long-term structural problems.

Pedro Telles explored whether EU public procurement rules - currently structured primarily through Directives - are still fit for purpose and whether a shift toward a Regulation might offer a more effective way forward. He began by questioning the fundamental “job” EU procurement rules are meant to accomplish: opening markets, ensuring fair competition, and enabling cross-border participation. Yet, despite decades of Directives, actual cross-border award levels have remained remarkably low, moving only from about 1–2% in the 1960s to 2–5% in the 2010s. Both Commission evaluations and senior Commission officials openly acknowledge this persistent underperformance, alongside rising concerns about participation by third-country companies. This, Telles suggested, signals a quiet recognition that the Directives have not fully achieved their market-opening goals.

He then examined historical patterns where sectors with failed or outdated Directives were later regulated by Regulations instead. He proposed that procurement may now be reaching a similar point, particularly after the Kolin judgment, which positioned aspects of procurement within the EU’s exclusive commercial policy competence, raising questions about whether a Directive-based system can still adequately respond. Moving procurement itself into a Regulation could bring greater consistency, standardisation, more effective enforcement, and a new regulatory equilibrium. However, he also acknowledged clear risks: a poorly drafted Regulation could worsen compliance problems, and some barriers - such as geography, language, and currency differences - cannot be legislated away. He concluded by encouraging an open debate about whether the next phase of procurement reform requires a regulatory instrument with greater force and coherence than the current Directives.