horak Rechtsanwälte advise public contracting authorities, utilities, bidders and businesses on German and EU public procurement. We help clients prepare competitions, assess tenders, protect procurement rights and manage contracts. Our English guides explain the legal framework and its practical consequences for international as well as German organisations.
Advice for buyers and bidders
For public buyers, the work starts with the need, estimated value, procedure, lots and consistent procurement documents. For bidders, the priorities include selection evidence, a compliant offer, contractual risks and a timely response to unlawful conditions or decisions. The appropriate strategy depends on the current stage and the result that can realistically be achieved.
Technical projects and contract performance
IT, cloud, AI, engineering and infrastructure projects connect procurement with technical, data and intellectual-property questions. Specifications, award criteria and the resulting contract should describe the same need. After award, options, additional services and changes to the contractor or commercial balance may still require procurement review.
For bidders · For contracting authorities · All procurement topics · Our lawyers
Procurement news in 2026
This year brings lower EU thresholds, changes to German procurement rules and new requirements affecting technology purchases. Our guides distinguish the date a rule starts to apply from its practical conditions, and explain what buyers and bidders should check.
Reform and lot formation
The lot principle now appears in section 97a GWB. Additional time-based exceptions concern defined infrastructure projects and require the statutory conditions to be met; general project pressure is not a universal justification.
AI procurement and compliance dates
Certain transparency obligations already apply, while central high-risk rules follow later under the July 2026 amendment. Classification, contractual roles, confidentiality and acceptance tests should be addressed before a system is bought.
Evidence and missing documents
Current VgV rules affect examination order and supplementation. Requests for evidence must preserve transparency and equality; they do not give bidders an unrestricted opportunity to improve a scored tender.
Case law: the practical significance
A judgment is most useful when its facts, legal finding and limits are kept distinct. The following decisions show why technical restrictions, social quality and effective review need careful treatment.
Sof Medica: technical specifications
In C-568/24, decided on 16 April 2026, the CJEU examined specifications for a surgical robot. Dimensions and construction features can restrict competition even without a brand name. A requirement inevitably arising from the contract must be distinguished from a product preference.
Read the detailed report in German
I-Sete: funding pressure and interim protection
The judgment of 17 September 2026 in joined cases C-266/25 and C-267/25 concerns a Portuguese mechanism for lifting suspension. EU funding deadlines do not justify a statutory shortcut without prior hearing and a substantive balancing of interests. Its implications for a German case require separate analysis.
Read the detailed report in German
AESTE: social award criteria
C-210/24, decided on 5 March 2026, addresses additional remuneration for personnel performing a social-services contract. Contract linkage, transparent evaluation and enforceable promises matter; the decision is not a general licence to score a company’s entire employment policy.
Read the detailed report in German
Case-law guide · 2026 news overview
Four practical examples
The following scenarios are illustrative, not reports of actual client matters. The outcome depends on the documents and circumstances of the individual procurement.
Example 1: Preparing an IT purchase
An authority plans a multi-year system. It aligns the full value including options, technical requirements, lot structure and evaluation before publication. This reduces contradictions and the need to correct the competition later.
Example 2: Protecting a bid
A company finds a restrictive reference condition. It assesses its evidence and whether clarification or a formal complaint is needed. Waiting for a reply does not automatically preserve every deadline.
Example 3: Challenging evaluation
An unsuccessful bidder receives intended-award information. It reviews the reasons, criteria and time before signature together. Contacting a law firm alone does not create an award prohibition.
Example 4: Changing a contract
The buyer wants additional services during performance. Review the original options and section 132 GWB before agreement. Both parties’ commercial consent does not establish that a fresh procurement is unnecessary.
Working with our firm
Please provide the authority and procurement reference, the current stage, relevant documents and any known deadline. We first clarify the requested scope, availability and terms of engagement. Consultations can be arranged with the appropriate team; office visits should be agreed in advance.
Services and fees · Office locations · Contact
Send an enquiry
All fields are optional. Please provide an email address or telephone number if you would like a reply. Sending this form does not establish a client relationship or preserve a legal deadline.
