The balance between national security and EU public procurement law: the Advocate General’s view

Abstract

This post examines the Advocate General’s Opinion of 8 September 2026 in joined Cases C-271/25, Autovici, and C-334/25, Skinest Baltija, concerning the relationship between national security and EU public procurement law. It argues that the Opinion develops an important balance: although national security remains the exclusive responsibility of the Member States under Article 4(2) TEU, this does not place national security measures beyond the reach of EU law. The post focuses on the Advocate General’s characterisation of national-security-based exclusion as an autonomous and sui generis ground of exclusion, distinct from the harmonised exclusion grounds under Directive 2014/24/EU. It explores the consequences of this approach for proportionality, legal certainty, temporariness and the periodic review of exclusion measures. Particular attention is given to the institutional separation between specialised national security authorities and contracting authorities. While such separation may be justified by the expertise and access to classified information of security authorities, it raises a fundamental question concerning the effective protection of economic operators’ procedural rights. The post argues that institutional separation cannot create an accountability gap: economic operators must retain a genuine opportunity to challenge the basis of a national security assessment, while national courts must retain effective and independent judicial review, including access to confidential information where necessary. The post therefore situates the Opinion within broader EU law concerns regarding proportionality, the rule of law, fundamental rights and effective judicial protection.