ECLI:EU:C:2026:835

Full text

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

BIONDI

delivered on 8 October 2026 (1)

Case C‑390/25

HUS-yhtymä

Other parties:

Cloudia OY

SC Software OY

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland))

( Reference for a preliminary – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 30 – Competitive dialogue – Article 67(5) – Relative weightings of the award criteria – Expression of weighting by means of ranges – Specification of the relative weighting in the invitation to submit the final tenders – Use in the contract notice of ranges which do not indicate the final order of importance of the award criteria )

I. Introduction

1. The present request for a preliminary ruling from the referring court, the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland), concerns two important aspects of public procurement.

2. First, it provides the Court of Justice with the opportunity to interpret, for the first time, the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU (2) governing competitive dialogue, a specific award procedure which takes place in several stages and is typically used for procurement characterised by technical, legal or financial complexity. Secondly, it also enables the Court to provide clarification on the obligation imposed by Article 67(5) of that directive on contracting authorities to indicate the relative weighting attributed to each of the contract award criteria, in particular where that indication is set out in the form of ranges. The interaction between these two aspects of the procurement rules laid down in Directive 2014/24 lies at the heart of the present case.

3. The request for a preliminary ruling has been made in the context of a dispute concerning a procedure for the award of a contract organised in the form of competitive dialogue by the Municipal Association of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Health Districts, subsequently HUS-yhtymä, the contracting authority. The procurement procedure at issue was for the acquisition of a comprehensive procurement management system and related expert services.

4. It was apparent from the contract notice that the contracting authority would award the contract on the basis of the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender. The description of the procedure annexed to the contract notice also stated that the tenders would be compared in the manner described in the final invitation to tender. The same document also indicated that the indicative award criteria and the relative weighting ranges were as follows:

– Price: 30-70%;

– Functional characteristics: 15-35%; and

– Competence of the expert group: 15-35%.

5. At the end of the dialogue with four candidates selected from among those which had submitted requests to participate, HUS-yhtymä invited those candidates to submit their final tenders. It is apparent from that invitation that the final weighting of the quality-price ratio and the award criteria was as follows:

‘– Price 30%;

– Quality 70%;

– Additional functionalities (35 points); and

– Interview (35 points)’.

6. By award decision and subsequent correction decision, HUS-yhtymä awarded the contract to SC Software Oy and designated Cloudia Oy as reserve supplier.

7. Cloudia Oy brought an action against the contract award decision before the court of first instance, claiming that the range of between 30% and 70% for the weighting of the award criteria, set by the contracting entity in the contract notice, was, given its breadth, inappropriate. The court of first instance upheld the action and annulled the award. HUS-yhtymä then challenged that judgment before the referring court.

8. In the context of the case pending before it, the referring court has two doubts as to interpretation. In those circumstances, it decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) In the context of a competitive dialogue within the meaning of Article 30 of Directive [2014/24], must the contracting authority evaluate the tenders submitted on the basis of the award criteria and the weightings relating to them as established in the contract notice or the descriptive document, or is it entitled to specify the relative weightings of the award criteria set out in the contract notice or the descriptive document in the [invitation to submit the final tenders] to be sent to the tenderers following the negotiations, in particular where those weightings were set out in the contract notice or the descriptive document in the form of a range within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of [Directive 2014/24]?

(2) If, in the context of a competitive dialogue, the contracting authority is entitled, when drawing up the invitation to [submit the final tenders], to specify the [relative] weightings set out in the contract notice or the descriptive document in the form of a range within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of [Directive 2014/24], may the [relative] weighting range used by the contracting authority in the present case at the stage of the contract notice be regarded as compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, given in particular, on the one hand, that the range used by the contracting authority does not indicate the final order of importance of the award criteria relating to price and quality, and, on the other hand, that the award criteria and their relative weightings as set out in the [invitation to submit final tenders] are within the range communicated at the stage of the contract notice?’

II. Analysis

9. Both questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the referring court concern the application of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 in the specific context of the competitive dialogue procedure provided for in Article 30 of that directive.

10. As a preliminary point, I recall that Article 67 of Directive 2014/24 lays down general rules concerning the criteria for awarding contracts. Paragraph 5 thereof concerns the obligation on contracting authorities to indicate the relative weighting of those criteria. Paragraph 5 is divided into three subparagraphs.

11. The first subparagraph provides that the ‘contracting authority shall specify, in the procurement documents, the relative weighting which it gives to each of the [contract award] criteria chosen to determine the most economically advantageous tender, except where this is identified on the basis of price alone’.

12. The second subparagraph provides that ‘those weightings may be expressed by providing for a range with an appropriate maximum spread.’

13. The third subparagraph provides that ‘where [the relative] weighting is not possible for objective reasons, the contracting authority shall indicate the [award] criteria in decreasing order of importance’.

14. Both questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, as regards the ranges used by HUS-yhtymä to express the relative weighting as one of the award criteria which it intended to use. The first question concerns, in essence, the point in time at which, in the context of the competitive dialogue procedure, the contracting authority may definitively determine the relative weighting expressed in the contract notice in the form of ranges; the second question concerns, on the other hand, the ‘appropriate’ nature of the spread provided for in the ranges used by HUS-yhtymä in the specific procurement procedure at issue.

15. In order to answer those two questions, it seems appropriate, as a preliminary matter, to give a brief outline of the essential characteristics of the competitive dialogue procedure as governed by Directive 2014/24.

A. Overview of the competitive dialogue procedure

16. Competitive dialogue is a flexible procedure designed for the award of particularly complex contracts. It is useful where contracting authorities are unable to define the means of satisfying their needs or of assessing what the market can offer in terms of technical, financial or legal solutions. (3) That may be the case, for example, for innovative projects or for services or supplies that require adaptation or design efforts, as in the case of complex purchases such as sophisticated products and intellectual services, for example certain consultancy services. (4) The fundamental objective of the competitive dialogue procedure is to enable the contracting authority, by means of a dialogue with the selected candidates, to identify and define the means best suited to satisfying its needs before requesting the final tenders.

17. The competitive dialogue was introduced for the first time into EU law by Directive 2004/18 (5) specifically in order to provide for a flexible procedure offering contracting authorities a legal and transparent way to engage in dialogue with the market where necessary, in particular because of the complexity of the tender. Directive 2014/24 maintained the original logic of the procedure, but incorporated it into an updated regulatory framework.

18. The competitive dialogue procedure is not freely available to contracting authorities, but is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions of use set out in Article 26(4) of Directive 2014/24. Thus, a contracting authority may make use of the competitive dialogue procedure only if one or more of the following situations exist: its needs cannot be met without the adaptation of readily available solutions; the works, supplies or services covered by the contract include innovative or design solutions; the contract cannot be awarded without prior negotiations because of specific circumstances related to the nature, the complexity or the legal and financial make-up of the subject matter of the contract; or the technical specifications cannot be established with sufficient precision.

19. The competitive dialogue procedure is governed by Article 30 of Directive 2014/24 and is, in essence, divided into four stages.

20. The first stage is the launch of the procedure by the publication by the contracting authority of a contract notice. That contract notice, or a descriptive document, sets out and defines the needs of the contracting authority, the requirements and the award criteria chosen in advance. (6) Any interested economic operator meeting the selection criteria may submit a request to participate in the competitive dialogue procedure. (7)

21. The second stage is that of the actual dialogue, which constitutes the main part of the procedure. First of all, the contracting authority sends simultaneously and in writing to the selected operators invitations to participate in the dialogue, (8) the content of which is set out in Annex IX to Directive 2014/24.

22. The contracting authority then opens a dialogue with the selected candidates, the aim of which is to identify and define the means best suited to satisfying its needs. That dialogue may concern all aspects of the procurement, and may take place in successive stages in order to reduce the number of solutions, progressively narrowing them down, while applying, in any event, the award criteria laid down in the contract notice or in the descriptive document. (9)

23. During the dialogue, contracting authorities must ensure equality of treatment among all participants; in particular, without providing information in a discriminatory manner which may give some participants an advantage over others. (10) During the dialogue, the principle of confidentiality also applies: contracting authorities must not reveal to the other participants solutions proposed or other confidential information communicated by a candidate without its agreement. (11) The dialogue continues until the contracting authority can identify the solution or solutions which are capable of meeting its needs. (12)

24. In the third stage, having declared that the dialogue stage is concluded, the contracting authority sends the remaining tenderers an invitation to submit their final tenders on the basis of the solutions defined during the dialogue stage. (13)

25. Finally, the fourth stage is that of the assessment of the tenders received on the basis of the award criteria laid down in the contract notice or in the descriptive document (14) and that of the subsequent final award of the contract.

B. The first question

26. By its first question, the referring court asks whether Article 30 and the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority which has expressed the relative weighting of the award criteria in the contract notice or in the descriptive document in the form of ranges is entitled to specify definitively that relative weighting in the invitation to submit the final tenders to be sent to the participants following the dialogue engaged in with them.

27. As noted, the first and second subparagraphs of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 permit the relative weighting of the award criteria for the purposes of determining the most economically advantageous tender to be indicated in the procurement documents, using ranges with an appropriate maximum spread.

28. The nature of the competitive dialogue itself makes the use of ranges particularly appropriate in this type of procedure. As I have observed, competitive dialogue inherently presupposes that contracting authorities are afforded a significant degree of flexibility by virtue of the fact that they make use of that type of procedure when they are not yet able to define precisely the means of satisfying their needs.

29. In that context, the possibility of resorting to ranges of values with an appropriate maximum spread, without therefore strictly determining the relative weightings in advance, gives contracting authorities significant discretion and flexibility as to how the contract award criteria are to be applied. The ranges, where appropriate, also provide participants with a sufficiently precise framework to be able to understand the essential elements of the evaluation that will lead to the award of the contract.

30. As regards the timeframe for indicating the relative weighting by means of ranges, it is clear from Annex IX to Directive 2014/24, point 1(e) thereof in particular, read in conjunction with the last sentence of Article 30(2) and Article 54 of that directive, that the relative weighting of the award criteria must appear in the contract notice or, alternatively, in the invitation to confirm interest, the technical specifications or the descriptive document.

31. That is, moreover, consistent with the case-law of the Court, according to which the contracting authorities’ obligation to indicate, in the contract notice or the tender specifications, the ‘relative weighting’ of each of the award criteria means that the weighting rules must be clearly defined from the beginning of the award procedure, so that a contracting authority may not, in principle, apply weighting rules which it has not previously brought to the tenderers’ attention. (15)

32. It is therefore clear that the indication of the relative weighting in the form of ranges must, in accordance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment, take place at the beginning of the competitive dialogue procedure.

33. However, where the contracting authority decides to use ranges, Directive 2014/24 does not specify at which stage of the award procedure, in particular at which stage of the complex competitive dialogue procedure, that relative weighting must be definitively determined.

34. In the case before the referring court, that definitive determination was made at the end of the dialogue with the selected participants, in the invitation to submit the final tenders.

35. In that regard, the objective of the dialogue stage is to identify and define the means best suited to satisfying the needs of the contracting authority. In that context, contracting authorities engage in structured discussions with the selected participants, which may relate to all aspects of the contract and which aim to specify, as the dialogue progresses, the information relating to the contract. It is only when that dialogue is concluded because the contracting authority has identified the solution or solutions capable of satisfying its needs that the participants submit their final tenders.

36. It follows that, as long as the competitive dialogue has not been concluded because satisfactory solutions have not yet been found, the contracting authority must be able to retain the flexibility afforded to it by the competitive dialogue procedure in order to define those solutions. At that stage, it is therefore not strictly necessary for the relative weighting of the award criteria expressed in the form of ranges to be definitively determined. Nevertheless, were the contracting authority required to determine that weighting definitively before the end of the dialogue stage, this would risk limiting, or even rendering meaningless, the flexibility specifically offered by that procedure.

37. However, once the competitive dialogue has been concluded, and thus the possible solution or solutions have been definitively clarified, the contracting authority may determine the final relative weightings of the award criteria, within the limits of the ranges indicated in advance, so that the remaining participants in the dialogue may take them into account when drawing up their final tenders.

38. An interpretation of the relevant provisions to that effect ensures, moreover, compliance with both the principle of equal treatment (16) and the obligation of transparency deriving therefrom. (17)

39. It follows from the foregoing that, in my view, the first question referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered as follows: Article 30 and the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding, in the context of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority which has expressed the relative weighting of the award criteria in the contract notice or in the descriptive document in the form of a range from being entitled to specify definitively that relative weighting in the invitation to submit final tenders to be sent to the participants, following the dialogue engaged in with them.

C. The second question

40. By the second question, the referring court asks whether the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with Article 30 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority may use in the contract notice ranges for the relative weighting of the contract award criteria from which the final order of those criteria is not apparent, given that the award criteria and their relative weightings, as set out in the invitation to submit the final tenders, fall within the range communicated in the contract notice.

41. The referring court refers that question for a preliminary ruling in a context where, as is apparent from point 4 of this Opinion, in the call for tenders at issue in the case pending before it, the ranges used by the contracting authority to indicate the relative weighting of the contract award criteria provided: as regards price, a range of 30% to 70%, and as regards quality, two ranges of 15% to 35% for functional characteristics and 15% to 35% for the competence of the group of experts, respectively.

42. The use of those ranges did not therefore make it possible to determine, at the time of publication of the contract notice, the order of importance of the award criteria and, more specifically, whether price or the two quality criteria would play a predominant role in the final award of the contract. The use of such ranges could give rise to countless possible combinations within two borderline situations: one in which, once the final relative weightings had been determined, price would account for 70% and quality for 30%; or, conversely – as was subsequently the case – one in which quality would account for 70% and price for only 30%.

43. In that context, in order to ascertain whether, as asked in the second question referred, the use of such ranges in the context of a competitive dialogue procedure is compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, I consider it necessary, first of all, to interpret that provision, in order to determine whether it allows, in general, for the use of ranges for the relative weighting of the contract award criteria from which the final order of the award criteria is not apparent. It will then be necessary to ascertain whether, in the particular framework of the competitive dialogue award procedure, a specific approach is justified in the light of the particular characteristics of that procedure.

1. The interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5)

44. It is settled case-law that, when interpreting a provision of EU law, account must be taken not only of its wording but also of its context and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it forms part (18) and, where appropriate, the origins of that legislation. (19)

45. From a textual point of view, the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 provides that the relative weighting of the award criteria may be expressed by providing for a range with an appropriate maximum spread. (20)

46. A literal analysis of that provision does not make it possible to clarify definitively whether the indication of the relative weighting of the award criteria as ranges must indicate the final order of those criteria.

47. First, the concept of ‘relative weighting’ as such does not necessarily presuppose that a definitive order of the factors taken into account is determined.

48. From a terminological point of view, in statistics, weighting is an operation (also referred to as weighing) by which, in calculating an average, a coefficient (weight) is attributed to each term, expressing the relative importance of the term itself in relation to the others. As it is ‘relative’, it is clear that the weighting must make it possible to identify a relationship of importance of all the factors considered. However, where weighting is expressed using ranges, although this generally implies that at least a partial order of importance of these factors is identified, it does not necessarily give rise to a complete and unequivocal order; it depends on how the ranges are defined.

49. Thus, where the ranges do not overlap (for example: A = 40-50%; B = 25-35%; and C = 15-20%), the final order of importance of the various factors will be incorporated in the ranges. However, where, as in the case of the ranges used in the contract notice at issue, the ranges overlap (for example: A = 30-50%; B = 25-45%; and C = 10-30%), it will not be possible to determine with certainty the final order of the factors until the final values expressed within the ranges are definitively determined.

50. Secondly, the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 provides that the maximum spread indicated in the range must be ‘appropriate’. However, Directive 2014/24 does not – in my view, intentionally – specify what is to be understood by ‘appropriate’ spread, thus leaving it to the interpreter and, ultimately, to the Court to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the scope of that concept.

51. In that context, it is therefore necessary to carry out a systematic and teleological analysis of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 in order to determine whether that provision allows for the relative weighting of the award criteria to be indicated by ranges which do not define the definitive order of those criteria in advance.

52. In that regard, from a systematic point of view, the provision at issue falls within the scope of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, which, as recalled in points 10 to 13 above, consists of three subparagraphs. The first subparagraph lays down, first of all, the principle that contracting authorities are under an obligation to specify the relative weighting of the contract award criteria.

53. It is apparent from recital 90 and from the case-law of the Court that the purpose of that obligation is to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency deriving therefrom. It is intended to enable all operators participating in the procurement procedure to be reasonably informed of the criteria and arrangements which will be applied to identify the most economically advantageous tender. That obligation reflects the duty of the contracting authorities under Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24 to treat economic operators equally and non-discriminatorily and to act in a transparent way. (21)

54. The second subparagraph of Article 67(5), namely the provision at issue, gives contracting authorities the option of indicating the relative weighting by using ranges, thereby ensuring that those authorities have a degree of flexibility. That option is not subject to any suitability condition. The contracting authority may use the ranges where it sees fit, subject only to the condition that there ‘[is] an appropriate maximum spread’. Even if, as observed, Directive 2014/24 does not specify what is meant by the term ‘appropriate … spread’, it is clear that it must refer to the objective of the obligation to indicate the relative weighting which, as noted in the preceding point, concerns the need to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency arising therefrom.

55. The third subparagraph, read in the light of recital 90, provides that the only case in which the contracting authorities may derogate from the obligation to indicate the relative weighting of the award criteria is where that weighting cannot be established in advance, inter alia because of the complexity of the contract. However, due justification and reasons must be given for that derogation from the obligation to indicate the weighting in advance. In such a case, it is also necessary, in any event, that those contracting authorities indicate the award criteria in decreasing order of importance.

56. The indication of the decreasing order of importance of the criteria for the award of the contract therefore appears, in the scheme of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, to be the insuperable limit necessary to ensure the minimum threshold for compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency for tenderers in relation to the need to know in advance the importance of the contract award criteria. If, for objective and reasoned considerations, it is not possible to indicate the relative weighting of those criteria, Directive 2014/24 provides that it is necessary to indicate at the very least the decreasing order of importance of those criteria.

57. However, although the indication of the decreasing order of importance of the award criteria is the insuperable limit on the discretion afforded to the contracting authorities in fulfilling their obligation to bring the specific importance of the award criteria to the attention of the candidates in advance, it necessarily appears that that limit must also be complied with when indicating the relative weighting of those criteria by means of ranges. In that context, it would also, in my view, be illogical if the possibility of a derogation provided for on an exceptional and residual basis in the third subparagraph – in respect of which an obligation to provide due justification and reasoning is expressly laid down – were to constitute a regime that is more restrictive and places greater limits on the discretion afforded to contracting authorities than a rule of a more general nature such as that laid down in the second subparagraph. Furthermore, the obligation to provide ranges with an ‘appropriate’ spread is intended precisely to prevent the contracting authorities from defining weightings that are so vague that they do not allow competitors to understand from the outset the relative importance of each award criterion.

58. Such an interpretation of the provision at issue appears, moreover, to be confirmed by the legislative history of the rule. In that regard, the provision currently enshrined in Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 was introduced into EU procurement law by Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18. It is apparent from the preparatory work on that directive (22) that the obligation to indicate the relative weighting of the award criteria was introduced precisely in order to limit the discretion, which was regarded as excessive and was afforded to the contracting authorities by the mere obligation – in place before the entry into force of that provision – to indicate, in the contract documents or the contract notice, the award criteria which they intended to apply, ‘where possible in descending order of importance’. (23) This confirms that the provision set out in the third subparagraph may not be more restrictive, in terms of limiting the discretion of contracting authorities, than the provision laid down in the second subparagraph.

59. Nevertheless, from a purely teleological point of view, I consider that allowing contracting authorities the option of using ranges in the contract notice which subsequently permit them to amend the determination of the order of importance of the award criteria would result in an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency which contracting authorities, by virtue of Article 18 of Directive 2014/24, must observe throughout the contract award procedure (24) and compliance with which, as noted in point 55 above, Article 67(5) of the directive is specifically intended to ensure.

60. Were it accepted that ranges which do not make it possible to understand the relative order of importance may be used, this would afford the contracting authorities the option of attaching to the award criteria, at the time of evaluating the tenders, a specific weighting and hence a relative value of which the tenderers are not aware. That would allow contracting authorities to attach unforeseeable importance to one or more criteria, even after the opening of the tenders, thereby enabling them to favour one tender or another. (25)

61. Moreover, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the relative weighting of each award criterion must be clearly established at the beginning of the procurement procedure, thereby enabling tenderers to determine objectively the actual importance of one award criterion in relation to the others in the course of their subsequent evaluation by the contracting authority, and also that, similarly, the relative weighting of each award criterion cannot be altered throughout the entire procedure. (26)

62. The Court has accepted a single exception to that restrictive approach, with regard to the sub-criteria for the award, subject to compliance with the requirements imposed to safeguard equal treatment and the obligation of transparency deriving therefrom. (27)

63. In my view, it therefore follows from the foregoing that the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 does not permit the relative weighting of the award criteria to be indicated by means of ranges which do not define in advance the definitive order of those criteria. Such ranges cannot therefore be regarded as ‘appropriate’ for the purposes of that provision.

2. The application of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 in the specific context of the competitive dialogue

64. It must, however, be ascertained whether, in the light of the specific characteristics and particular aspects of the competitive dialogue procedure, as highlighted in points 16 to 25 above, a particular approach is justified as regards the application of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) in the context of that award procedure.

65. As is apparent from those points, on account of its specific objective, namely, to make it possible for the contracting authority, by means of a dialogue with the selected candidates, to identify and define the means best suited to satisfying its needs, before requesting final tenders, the competitive dialogue award procedure affords the contracting authority greater discretion than other procurement procedures.

66. As previously observed, contracting authorities have an interest in using this type of procedure where they are unable to define the means of satisfying their needs or to assess the solutions which the market may offer for their needs from a technical, financial or legal perspective. In particular, in the context of the dialogue which is a specific feature of competitive dialogue, the contracting authority considers the functionalities which it intends to have at its disposal or the performance which it intends to achieve. In such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that if it is impossible for a contracting authority to define from the outset, in concrete terms, the means by which to satisfy its needs, it finds itself in a position where it is unable initially to weigh with precision the criteria for awarding the contract.

67. In that context, the question arises as to the extent of the discretion afforded to the contracting authority with regard to that weighting.

68. By offering the possibility of expressing that weighting by means of ranges, the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) does allow for the precise weighting not to be determined in advance and thus already affords significant discretion. The concept of ‘appropriate’ spread, as already noted, must be interpreted broadly in the context of the competitive dialogue. However, that discretion cannot go so far as to allow contracting authorities not to indicate, by way of derogation from the third subparagraph of that provision, the decreasing order of importance of the award criteria.

69. In that regard, I note, in the first place, that no specific provision of Directive 2014/24 provides for a derogation, or a differentiated or particular application, of the provisions of Article 67(5) of that directive in the specific context of the competitive dialogue award procedure. Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24 is of general application and applies in its entirety to all award procedures provided for in that directive.

70. In the second place, it is clear from the second subparagraph of Article 30(3) of Directive 2014/24 that, in competitive dialogues, the contracting authority is required to comply with the principles of equal treatment and transparency throughout the entire procedure.

71. Although those principles must be considered and applied taking into account the specific nature of the competitive dialogue award procedure, which inherently involves a broad discretion, it is nevertheless apparent from points 59 to 61 above that, were contracting authorities offered the option of altering the order of importance of the award criteria at a time when they have become aware of the solutions proposed by the various participants, this would potentially lead to an infringement of the principle of equal treatment between competitors, also in the context of the competitive dialogue.

72. It follows, in my view, that, despite the broad discretion afforded to contracting authorities in the context of the competitive dialogue procedure, the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, as interpreted in point 63 of this Opinion, must also be fully applicable, even in that award procedure.

73. Lastly, it should be noted that the last sentence of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, relating to the fact that the award criteria and their relative weighting, indicated in the invitation to submit the final tenders in the case under consideration, fell within the range communicated in the contract notice, does not appear to be relevant for the purposes of answering that question. In the invitation to submit the final tenders, any indication of award criteria or definitive values of their relative weighting which would not be consistent with the indications and ranges in the contract notice would constitute an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, in addition to an infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24.

74. In conclusion, it follows from the foregoing that, in my view, the second question referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered as follows: the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with Article 30 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the framework of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority may not use in the contract notice ranges for the relative weighting of the contract award criteria from which the final order of those criteria is not apparent.

III. Conclusion

75. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) as follows:

(1) Article 30 and the second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of 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

must be interpreted as not precluding, in the context of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority which has expressed the relative weighting of the award criteria in the contract notice or in the descriptive document in the form of a range from being entitled to specify definitively that relative weighting in the invitation to submit final tenders to be sent to the participants, following the dialogue engaged in with them.

(2) The second subparagraph of Article 67(5) of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with Article 30 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the framework of a competitive dialogue procedure, a contracting authority may not use in the contract notice ranges for the relative weighting of the contract award criteria from which the final order of those criteria is not apparent.

1 Original language: Italian.

2 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, pp. 65-242).

3 See recital 42 of Directive 2014/24.

4 See recitals 42 and 43 of Directive 2014/24.

5 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114). See, in particular, Article 29 of that directive.

6 See Article 30(1), first subparagraph, and Article 30(2) of Directive 2014/24.

7 See the first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Directive 2014/24.

8 See the third paragraph of Article 30(1) and Article 54 of Directive 2014/24.

9 Article 30(4) of Directive 2014/24.

10 Subparagraph 2 of Article 30(3) of Directive 2014/24.

11 Subparagraph 3 of Article 30(3) of Directive 2014/24.

12 Article 30(5) of Directive 2014/24.

13 Article 30(6) of Directive 2014/24.

14 Article 30(7) of Directive 2014/24.

15 See, to that effect, as regards Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18, judgment of 14 July 2016, TNS Dimarso (C‑6/15, EU:C:2016:555, paragraphs 24 and 25 and the case-law cited).

16 It is apparent from settled case-law that that principle requires that all tenderers must be afforded equality of opportunity when formulating their tenders, and therefore implies that the tenders of all competitors must be subject to the same conditions. See, inter alia, judgment of 11 July 2019, Telecom Italia (C‑697/17, EU:C:2019:599, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

17 That obligation, according to settled case-law, is designed essentially to ensure that any interested operator may take the decision to tender, in a public procurement procedure, on the basis of all relevant information and to ensure the elimination of any risk of favouritism or arbitrariness on the part of the contracting authority. See, inter alia, judgment of 4 April 2019, Allianz Vorsorgekasse (C‑699/17, EU:C:2019:290, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).

18 See, inter alia, judgment of 15 January 2026, AVR-Afvalverwerking (C‑692/23, EU:C:2026:4, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

19 See, inter alia, judgment of 22 April 2015, Drukarnia Multipress (C‑357/13, EU:C:2015:253, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

20 See paragraph 12 above.

21 See, with regard to Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18, judgment of 14 July 2016, TNS Dimarso (C‑6/15, EU:C:2016:555, paragraph 21).

22 See Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts, public service contracts and public works contracts COM(2000) 275 final (OJ 2001 C 29 E, p. 11). See, in particular, points 6.2 and 6.3.

23 In that regard, see Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in TNS Dimarso (C‑6/15, EU:C:2016:160, point 22).

24 See, inter alia and most recently, judgment of 5 March 2026, AESTE (C‑210/24, EU:C:2026:145, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).

25 In that regard, see also the Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal for a Directive (COM(2000) 275 final) cited above, point 6.2, and the European Commission Explanatory Note on Competitive Dialogue (Document CC/2005/04, p. 7, last paragraph).

26 See, with regard to Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18, judgment of 14 July 2016, TNS Dimarso (C‑6/15, EU:C:2016:555, paragraph 25).

27 The Court has accepted that it is possible for a contracting authority to determine, after expiry of the time limit for submitting tenders, weighting factors for the sub-criteria which correspond in essence to the criteria previously brought to the tenderers’ attention, provided that three conditions are met, namely that that subsequent determination, first, does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the tender specifications or contract notice; secondly, does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected their preparation; and, thirdly, was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers (see judgment of 14 July 2016, TNS Dimarso (C‑6/15, EU:C:2016:555, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).

Opinion of Advocate General Biondi delivered on 8 October 2026.###

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude