Abnormally low tenders in the EU case law

Insights · Pricing · Published 10 October 2026. This analysis was generated with the help of an AI system. Its legal references were checked against the official EU texts listed under Sources on 10 October 2026. It describes the law as it stood on that date. Not legal advice.

Short answer. The decisions we found don’t add a numerical test for “abnormally low”, and they don’t loosen Article 69. What they do is describe the procedure in steps. Where a tender raises suspicion, the buyer must check it, whatever the national method and however many tenders there are. The bidder must know the precise points in question and get a real chance to explain. The explanation must be assessed fairly. A €0 price can’t be thrown out automatically. And a rejection, or a refusal to reject a rival’s tender that you expressly questioned, has to come with reasons you can test. Several of these points come from cases outside Directive 2014/24, which we flag below.

Our analysis · How we searched

On 10 October 2026 we searched the official English texts of the 154 judgments and orders, out of 194, that the EU Publications Office database links to Directive 2014/24/EU or, from 14 July 2016, to Directive 2004/18/EC. The method is described in our analysis of the scoring formula. Eleven decisions mention abnormally low tenders. We read each one and kept those where the point was actually decided, then added two older or outside judgments that the recent ones rely on.

Most of the eleven mention the topic only in passing, in the legal background or in arguments. One, Tecnoedi (C‑318/15), raised the automatic exclusion of low bids below the EU thresholds, but the Court declared the reference inadmissible, so it decided nothing on that question.

EU law · The procedure, step by step

Article 69 is the starting point. The buyer must require an explanation where tenders “appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, supplies or services”. It assesses the evidence “by consulting the tenderer”, and may reject only if the evidence doesn’t satisfactorily account for the low price (Article 69(1) and (3)). The case law fills in how that works.

Read the regimes carefully. Veridos applied the defence Directive. C‑101/22 P applied the EU’s Financial Regulation, which governs purchases by EU institutions. T‑161/24 concerned a European Investment Bank tender. Lombardini is from 2001. The principles are consistent with Article 69, but we found no judgment that applies the C‑101/22 P duty to Directive contracts in so many words. Treat those points as strong indications, not settled rules for a national tender.

National law · What stays national

Numerical triggers, such as a percentage below the average bid, are national choices. Article 69 has none. So are the review procedure and its deadlines. Tecnoedi shows that questions about automatic exclusion below the thresholds have reached the Court, but that reference produced no answer.

Practice · Using the case law

If your price is questioned:

1. Check you know what is questioned. If the request is vague, ask the buyer to name the points of concern. The case law expects you to know them (Lombardini, para 53).
2. Answer item by item. In T‑161/24 the bank accepted four of the six explanations and rejected two, on the daily rates for specific profiles. Treat each item as a separate test.
3. Show the build-up, not just the total. The rejected answers there concerned whether the rates covered the staff, skills and locations required. Tie each rate to real costs (see abnormally low tenders).
4. Don’t change the tender. The request in T‑161/24 said so expressly. Your explanation shows why the price works; it can’t alter it (see when the buyer asks you to clarify your tender).

If a rival’s price looks too low:

1. Ask expressly, and in writing. C‑101/22 P attached the duty to give reasons to a bidder that had expressly questioned the winning tender. Put the question as part of your request after the decision (Article 55(2)).
2. Ask what was checked. Did the buyer ask the winner for an explanation under Article 69? Which points did it examine?
3. Watch the clock. Standstill and review deadlines don’t wait for the answer (see after the award decision).

What this analysis doesn’t cover

National case law and numerical triggers. Utilities and concessions. State aid as a ground (Article 69(4)). Decisions that the database doesn’t link to the two Directives, and the 40 decisions without an English text.