EU buyers could get a Europe-first lever

The European Commission proposed a Public Procurement Act on 9 September that would give public buyers across the EU optional tools to favour European suppliers (Commission). The text replaces three existing directives with a single regulation applying directly in all 27 member states. As we reported when the draft leaked last week (To Brief), the proposal shifts purchasing rules away from cheapest-bid awards and toward quality-based evaluation. Nothing changes today. The regulation must pass both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU (where national governments negotiate) before it binds anyone.

Optional powers, real choices

The proposal creates a toolbox, not an obligation. Public buyers could restrict suppliers from countries that lack guaranteed access to EU public tenders, or require that a minimum share of goods in a bid originates in the EU (proposed regulation, Politico). A French mayor could use these powers to exclude a Chinese bus manufacturer. A Finnish hospital could ignore them entirely.

The dividing line runs through trade agreements. Countries with procurement access guaranteed by WTO deals or bilateral EU agreements, such as the US, Japan and Norway, would keep their current rights. Firms from countries without such agreements, like China and India, could face restrictions (Guardian, proposed regulation). Polish authorities could not favour Polish firms over German ones: EU internal-market rules still prohibit discrimination between member states.

The Commission would also hold a separate, stronger power to impose mandatory restrictions after finding that a third country systematically shuts EU firms out of its own tenders. Beijing has already responded to a narrower version of this approach. When Brussels restricted Chinese operators from medical-device tenders in 2025 under the existing International Procurement Instrument, China imposed reciprocal limits on EU suppliers (Crowell). That precedent makes retaliation risk concrete, not speculative.

Quality floors without labour guarantees

The proposal would also make best price-quality ratio the standard way to award contracts, with quality counting for at least 30% of the evaluation score, and at least 50% in labour-intensive services like cleaning and security (EU Perspectives, proposed regulation). The proposed percentages do not, however, require worker protections. Italy's CGIL trade union argues the text could undermine Italy's 2023 Public Contracts Code, which forces bidders to identify the applicable collective agreement and prove equivalent protections (Il Fatto Quotidiano). Because a regulation overrides national law, the legal question is whether Italy could retain stronger requirements. The European Trade Union Confederation has called on Parliament and Council to add binding worker protections to the text (ETUC).

Governments have not chosen sides

Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné argues that buyers already had room to favour quality but avoided it for fear of litigation, and wants mayors held politically accountable for their purchasing choices (Le Monde). The German Chamber of Commerce called localisation requirements a last resort that can raise prices and provoke retaliation (DIHK). Nine member states, including Sweden, Czechia, Finland and Ireland, warned in December 2025 that broad European-preference policies could damage competition (Euronews). But that warning predates this specific text, and no government has formally committed for or against it.

Under the ordinary legislative procedure, both the Parliament and the Council must agree on a final text. In the Council, a qualified majority (at least 15 of 27 governments representing 65% of the EU population) must vote in favour (European Parliament). Neither institution has begun forming a negotiating position. One implementation question will likely shape the debate before any vote: who verifies that goods in a bid actually originate in the EU, and who absorbs the cost when a buyer's preference for European suppliers raises prices?

The Commission has proposed European preference without requiring it. Parliament and national governments now control whether Europe gets a common purchasing rule or a menu that buyers ignore. Neither has shown its hand.