Judgment C-820/24 - is the public procurement contract still within its validity period after performance completion and invoice issuance?

In public procurement law, few questions seem more technical and, at the same time, more practical than this one: from what moment does a public contract cease to be "during its period of validity"? The CJEU answered on June 4, 2026, in the case Strominator Elektro GmbH v. Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH, and the answer is worth keeping in the useful jurisprudence folder.

In that case, an Austrian contracting authority had awarded an electrical installation works contract to an economic operator. The works were executed within the agreed timeframes, final acceptance took place, and the final invoice was issued. However, the contracting authority had not yet paid the price when it decided to award the same company, without organizing a new award procedure, a new works contract for another part of the same building. The argument invoked: the initial contract was still "during its period of validity," and Article 72 of Directive 2014/24/EU allows modification of contracts in this situation without organizing a new procedure.

The Court was not convinced. Interpreting Article 72 through its terms, systematic context, and pursued objectives, it ruled that a public procurement contract ceases to be "during its period of validity" from the moment when the contractor's performance has been fully executed, the contracting authority has definitively accepted it, and the final invoice has been issued. Non-payment of the price is, from this perspective, legally irrelevant regarding the applicability of Article 72.

The reasoning is solid. The flexibility that Article 72 grants to contracting authorities exists precisely to allow them to deal with unforeseen situations arising during contract execution. Once execution has concluded and acceptance has taken place, this rationale disappears. Allowing artificial maintenance of the contract "alive" through simple payment delay would transform a derogatory provision into a discretionary instrument for evading the principles of equal treatment and transparency. Derogatory provisions, the Court reminds, are interpreted strictly.

The practical message is simple, even if the implications are not always comfortable for contracting authorities: the modification window closes at acceptance and final invoice, not at payment.