EU Advocate General interprets Article 5k of EU Russia Reg 833 on public procurement – discussion of EU / member state competence re sanctions & Article 10 Reg 833

12 September 2026

KX v Smetna palata Case C-378/25: Advocate General Medina has given her non-binding opinion on the Bulgarian administrative court’s request for the European Court of Justice (CJEU) to give a preliminary ruling interpreting Article 5k of Reg 833 of the EU’s Russia sanctions Regulation (EU) 833/2014, which prohibits Russian nationals and companies from being awarded EU procurement contracts. This case will be now decided by the Grand Chamber of the CJEU because of its importance.

See our EU preliminary rulings page for all pending & decided CJEU preliminary references on sanctions issues. The Court interpreted Article 5k of Reg 833 earlier this year in Opera Laboratori Fiorentini.

In these proceedings, a Bulgarian mayor had made a procurement contract conditional on complying with Article 5k, even though the contract value fell below the threshold set out in the EU procurement directive Directive 2014/24; the contract value met the threshold under Bulgarian law because Bulgaria decreased the threshold when it implemented the procurement directive into Bulgarian law.  The Bulgarian court asked the ECJ to interpret Article 5k, including whether it applies to procurement contracts that fall below the EU threshold.

The AG’s view is that

• Article 5k applies only to procurement procedures that fall within the scope of the EU procurement directives, including the EU threshold amounts, because Article 5k is clear that the prohibition applies to public contracts falling within the scope of the public procurement Directives.

• An EU Member State cannot expand the scope of Article 5k simply because its domestic legislation applies procurement rules to lower-value contracts.

• Member States are free, as a matter of national law, to adopt equivalent exclusions for sub-threshold contracts, provided those national measures do not undermine EU law or EU objectives.

• However, Bulgaria’s decision to implement the Directive using a lower domestic threshold cannot automatically enlarge the scope of an EU sanctions measure. Permitting national procurement exclusions does not imply that Member States could create their own sanctions listings since targeted asset-freeze measures engage different considerations, including the need for a uniform EU sanctions regime and the free movement of capital. She refers to the Commission’s opinion of 8 Nov 2019 on the compatibility of national asset freezes imposed by Member States with EU law.

• There is an interesting discussion of the different legal bases of the EU’s sectoral sanctions compared with individual ‘targeted’ sanctions, and of the extent of EU & national competence in relation to different areas of sanctions policy.

• The case raises for the first time questions about Article 10 of Regulation 833/2014, the non-liability provision protecting people who did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that their conduct infringed Reg 833. The AG says (para 89) that where there are reasonable doubts about the scope of Reg 833 and the contracting authority can demonstrate good faith, the court should consider whether Article 10 should exclude liability.