This judgment concerns the limits imposed by Directive 2014/24/EU on technical specifications in public procurement procedures, particularly where contracting authorities define highly specific technological requirements that may favour a particular supplier or technical solution.
Summary of the facts
The case arose from a Romanian public procurement procedure launched by a hospital for the supply, installation and commissioning of a surgical robot. The contracting authority drafted technical specifications requiring, in substance, a modular and mobile robotic system, with independent robotic arms, suitable for use in operating rooms without major structural adaptation.
Sof Medica SA, a supplier of a different type of robotic surgical system, challenged the specifications. It argued that the requirements were so specific that they effectively excluded competing technologies and favoured a particular technical solution. The dispute therefore concerned the limits imposed by Directive 2014/24/EU on technical specifications in public procurement, especially Article 42 and the general principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality.
The Romanian referring court asked whether at the date of the publication of the contract notice the contracting authority is required to state the objective justifications underpinning a technical specification and whether highly restrictive technical specifications had to include the wording “or equivalent”.
Findings of the Court
The Court held in a judgement of 16 April 2026, first, that EU procurement law does not require a contracting authority to set out, in the contract notice or procurement documents themselves, a full justification for every technical specification. The transparency principle requires specifications to be drafted clearly, precisely and unequivocally in the contract notice or tender specifications, so that reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers can understand them in the same way. It does not automatically require a contracting authority to provide an objective justification which explains, from its perspective, the content of the technical specifications set out in the procurement documents.
On the phrase “or equivalent”, the Court treated Article 42 of Directive 2014/24/EU as the key provision. Where technical specifications refer to a specific make, source, process, trademark, patent, type or origin, such reference is generally prohibited unless justified by the subject matter of the contract and accompanied by the words “or equivalent” unless it is justified by the subject matter of the contract concerned. The Court’s reasoning therefore turns on whether the technical requirements describe the authority’s actual functional needs, or whether they amount to an indirect reference to a particular product or technology.
The national court must verify whether the requirements imposed by the hospital — modularity, mobility, independent arms, dimensions, weight and compatibility with the hospital’s operating rooms — were genuinely necessary in view of the hospital’s concrete constraints. If those requirements necessarily flowed from the subject matter and needs of the contract, they may be lawful. If, however, they merely reflected a preference for one technological model or supplier, they may breach EU procurement law unless equivalent solutions were allowed.
Analysis
The judgment avoids imposing an excessive formal burden on contracting authorities: they are not required to include a detailed legal and technical defence of every specification in the tender documents. That is sensible, particularly for complex medical, IT or technological procurements, where needs may be highly specialised.
At the same time, the judgment does not allow public buyers to hide discriminatory specifications behind apparently neutral technical language. The more detailed and product-specific a specification becomes, the stronger the evidentiary burden on the contracting authority will be if the specification is challenged. In practice, buyers should document internally, before publication, why each restrictive technical requirement is necessary.
The judgment is especially relevant for technology-heavy procurement. A contracting authority may define its needs by reference to performance, interoperability, space constraints, security, mobility or continuity of service. But it should avoid translating those needs into a technical architecture that only one supplier can satisfy, unless that architecture is objectively indispensable.