Background
Metro do Porto organized a design contest on 10 March 2021 to select three bridge designs for the River Douro, with winners to receive prizes and be invited to submit implementation proposals. The contest was conducted under strict anonymity rules, with the jury prohibited from knowing designers’ identities until after ranking projects.
On 18 October 2021, the jury selected three winning designs. Adão da Fonseca-Engenheiros Consultores’ project was not selected. The company then invoked its right to a prior hearing under Portuguese administrative law, requesting the jury reconsider and modify its marks. Metro do Porto rejected this, reasoning that once anonymity is lifted, projects cannot be reassessed without compromising the contest’s integrity. Portuguese courts dismissed the company’s challenge, and the Supreme Administrative Court referred the dispute to the CJEU.
The referring court asked whether Articles 80 and 82 of Directive 2014/24/EU permit candidates to require a prior hearing by the contest jury before final ranking—balancing the EU right to be heard against strict anonymity requirements and jury independence.
The Court’s Holding
The CJEU held that candidates in design contests cannot require a prior hearing by the jury before the jury establishes its final ranking. Article 82 of Directive 2014/24 does not guarantee this right. While Article 82(5) allows the jury to invite candidates to answer clarifying questions at the jury’s discretion, this power does not create a right for candidates to demand a hearing.
Although Article 80(1) requires design contests to comply with general principles of Title I—including transparency and equal treatment—Title I contains no provision mandating prior hearings. Instead, these principles require that award procedures be transparent and contain no post-submission negotiation. Allowing prior hearings would undermine this framework and the core objective of maintaining jury independence and objective merit-based assessment.
The Court emphasized that anonymity requirements in Article 82(2) and (4) protect jury independence and objective evaluation. A prior hearing carried an inherent risk that information disclosing a candidate’s identity—even indirectly—might emerge. When the EU legislature intends to grant candidates or tenderers explicit rights to communicate with contracting authorities, it does so expressly, as shown in other procurement articles. The general EU law principle of the right to be heard, while applicable, must be balanced against the specific demands of design contest procedures and cannot override these specialized protections.
Key Takeaways
- Candidates in design contests cannot require a prior hearing by the contest jury before final project ranking under EU procurement law
- The jury’s power to request clarification from candidates remains discretionary; candidates cannot demand to be heard proactively
- Anonymity protections and jury independence take precedence over general administrative procedure rights in design contests
- Principles of equal treatment and transparency require upfront clarity on procedures and criteria, with no post-submission amendments or negotiations permitted
Why It Matters
This ruling resolves a tension between two competing legal principles: the general administrative right to be heard and the specific requirements of fair design contest administration. By holding that prior hearings cannot be demanded, the CJEU clarified that the confidentiality and independence of contest juries override customary procedural safeguards. This creates legal certainty for contracting authorities organizing design contests across the EU, confirming that jury rankings cannot be challenged on procedural grounds of lack of prior hearing.
The decision reinforces that design contests operate under a distinct procedural regime, where objective merit-based assessment protected by anonymity supersedes party participation rights. For candidates, this means that once contest criteria are published and submissions are made, the evaluation process is sealed—no subsequent opportunity to influence the jury exists. For contracting authorities, this provides protection against judicial second-guessing of jury decisions on procedural fairness grounds, provided anonymity and jury independence were maintained.