Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:472
Date: 2022-06-16
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Budget;Financial provisions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-376/21 – 1 
Case C-376/21 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
17 June 2021 
Referring court: 
Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 May 2021 
Appellant in cassation: 
Zamestnik-ministar na regionalnoto razvitie i blagoustroystvoto and 
rakovoditel na Upravliavashtia organ na Operativna programa 
‘Regioni v rastezh’ 2014-2020 (Deputy Minister for Regional 
Development and Public Works and Head of the Managing 
Authority of the Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 
2014-2020). 
Respondent in the appeal in cassation: 
Obshtina Razlog (municipality of Razlog) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal in cassation against a judgment of the administrative court of first instance 
upholding an action brought against a decision imposing a financial correction 
taken by the managing authority of an operational programme financed by 
European Union funds 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of EU law; point (b) of the first paragraph and the third paragraph of 
Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-376/21 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are Article 160(1) and Article 2 of Regulation 2018/1046 and Article 102(1) 
and (2) of Regulation No 966/2012 to be interpreted as also applying to 
contracting authorities of Member States of the European Union where the public 
contracts that they award are financed by resources from the European Structural 
and Investment Funds? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are the principles of 
transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in 
Article 160(1) of Regulation 2018/1046 and Article 102(1) of Regulation 
No 966/2012 to be interpreted as precluding a total restriction of competition in 
the award of a public contract by way of a negotiated procedure without prior 
publication where the subject matter of the public contract does not have special 
characteristics which objectively require it to be performed only by the economic 
operator invited to negotiate? In particular, are Article 160(1) and (2) of 
Regulation 2018/1046, read in conjunction with Article 164(1)(d) thereof, and 
Article 102(1) and (2) of Regulation No 966/2012, read in conjunction with 
Article 104(1)(d) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such 
as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, following the 
discontinuation of a public procurement procedure on the ground that the sole 
tender submitted is unsuitable, the contracting authority may invite only one 
economic operator to participate in a negotiated procedure without prior 
publication where the subject matter of the public contract does not have special 
characteristics which objectively require it to be performed only by the economic 
operator invited to negotiate? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, 
amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) 
No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, 
(EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and 
repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1): 
 
 Article 160(1) and (2), Article 164(1)(d) 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget 
of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 
2012 L 298, p. 1): Article 102(1) and (2), Article 104(1)(d) 
OBSHTINA RAZLOG 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za obshtestvenite porachki (Law on public procurement; ‘the ZOP’): 
Article 2(1), points 1 and 2, Article 2(2), Article 5(1) and (2), point 9, 
Article 18(1), (2) and (7), Article 79(1), point 1, Article 110(1), points 1 and 2, 
Article 182(1), point 2, Article 191(1), point 1 
Zakon za upravlenie na sredstvata ot Evropeyskite strukturni i investitsionni 
fondove (Law on the management of resources from the European Structural and 
Investment Funds; ‘the ZUSESIF’), Article 70(1), point 9 
Pravilnik za prilagane na Zakona za obshtestvenite porachki (Implementing 
provisions for the ZOP; ‘the PPZOP’): Article 64(1) and (3) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By agreement of 9 December 2016 between the municipality of Razlog and the 
managing authority of the operational programme ‘Regions in Growth 2014-2020’ 
(‘the Operational Programme’), financial assistance was granted to that 
municipality for the implementation of project proposal BG16RFOP001-3.002-
0025 (‘Making investments to improve educational infrastructure for the overall 
improvement of the learning process at the Vocational School of Agricultural 
Mechanisation of the Town of Razlog’). 
2 In order to carry out the project, the municipality of Razlog, in its capacity as 
contracting authority, conducted a public procurement procedure – a public 
invitation to tender with the subject matter: ‘Provision of technology, equipment 
and furniture for the needs of the Vocational School of Agricultural 
Mechanisation of the Town of Razlog’ – consisting of four separate lots. 
3 By decision of 1 November 2017, the procedure for lot No 2 was discontinued as 
only one tender that did not comply with the terms of the contract as previously 
announced had been submitted. 
4 By decision of 1 December 2017, the contracting authority initiated a new 
procedure having the same subject matter, but this time as a ‘negotiated procedure 
without prior publication’ pursuant to Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP. The 
decision to conduct that type of procurement procedure was justified on the 
grounds that no suitable tenders had been submitted in the previous procurement 
procedure and that there had been no change in the terms of the contract as 
originally announced for the discontinued lot under the invitation to tender. 
5 In the negotiated procedure without prior publication, the contracting authority 
invited only one economic operator to negotiate, with which it concluded public 
procurement contract No 681 of 29 December 2017 for the ‘Supply of metal 
equipment for the needs of the Vocational School of Agricultural Mechanisation 
of the Town of Razlog’, with a contract value of BGN 33 907, excluding VAT. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-376/21 
 
4  
6 The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works received a complaint of 
irregularity in the procedure thus conducted due to the fact that only one economic 
operator had been invited to negotiate. The Deputy Minister for Regional 
Development and Public Works, who is also the Head of the Managing Authority 
of the Operational Programme, informed the beneficiary (the municipality of 
Razlog) that a complaint had been received and a financial correction procedure 
initiated. 
7 In its written observations submitted to that authority, the beneficiary stated that 
the procurement procedure in question is not subject to any statutory prohibition 
on negotiating with only one economic operator, but, rather, provision is made for 
the possibility for the contracting authority to negotiate with one or more precisely 
identified persons, within the scope of the discretion conferred on it (Article 18(7) 
of the ZOP, read in conjunction with point 8 of Article 18(1) thereof). It takes the 
view that the purpose of that law (Article 2 of the ZOP), which is in line with the 
principle established in Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046, is to ensure 
competition on the broadest possible basis in the award of public contracts, but 
only where it is possible to do so. It stated that it did everything possible to select 
at least one contractor to submit a tender that complies with the terms of the 
contract in order that the works intended for the realisation of the project financed 
by the ESIF are carried out. 
8 By decision of 15 April 2020, the Head of the Managing Authority imposed a 
financial correction on the municipality of Razlog in the amount of 10% of the 
eligible costs under contract No 681 of 29 December 2017 concluded between that 
municipality and the economic operator invited to negotiate. In the statement of 
reasons for his decision, the Head of the Managing Authority does not raise any 
objection to the type of procedure conducted by the contracting authority – 
negotiated procedure without prior publication – in so far as the legal 
requirements under the ZPO for the conduct of such a procedure were met. 
However, referring to Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046 and Article 2(1), 
points 1 and 2, and Article 2(2) of the ZOP, the Head of the Managing Authority 
emphasises that compliance with the principle of free competition in the award of 
public contracts is mandatory. He stated that the exception to that principle in the 
negotiated procedure without prior publication resides in the fact that it is 
impossible to ensure ‘competition on the broadest possible basis’, that is to say, a 
restriction of competition is permissible and justified, but not to the extent of 
excluding it completely, as is the case here. He submitted that, in the absence of 
objective circumstances necessitating negotiations with a single, specific 
economic operator, the contracting authority should have ensured that the 
procedure was conducted under competitive conditions by inviting more than one 
person to negotiate. According to the Head of the Managing Authority, by inviting 
only one economic operator to negotiate, the contracting authority gave that 
economic operator an unjustified advantage without there being a legal or factual 
basis for doing so. Moreover, the decision to invite that specific company to 
negotiate in its capacity as contractor failed to state reasons and it is not clear why 
the invitation was addressed specifically to that company. 
OBSHTINA RAZLOG 
 
5 
9 The municipality of Razlog brought an action against that decision before the 
Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Administrative Court, Blagoevgrad). The latter 
annulled the decision on the ground that it infringed substantive law. 
10 Specifically, the Administrative Court, Blagoevgrad took the view that the 
beneficiary’s decision to award the public contract by way of the ‘negotiated 
procedure without prior publication’ after a previous public tendering procedure 
with the same subject matter had been discontinued, and without changing the 
terms of the contract as originally published, was in compliance with the law 
(Article 79(1), point 1 of the ZOP). Therefore, the resolution of the dispute hinges 
on whether the contracting authority has the possibility to invite only one person 
to negotiate in that subsequent procedure or whether this constitutes an 
infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and free 
competition under the ZPO and under Article 160(1) and (2) of Regulation 
2018/1046. The court of first instance takes the view that an exception to the 
principle of free competition in the award of public contracts is permissible in 
certain cases, which include the present one. It stated that the exception to the 
principle of ensuring competition on the broadest possible basis is manifested in 
the negotiated procedure without prior publication, the conditions for which 
generally presuppose that it is factually impossible for that principle to be applied, 
either because of the specific subject matter of the contract or because of the lack 
of suitable tenders (point 11.1 of the section entitled ‘Procurement procedures’ of 
Annex I to Regulation 2018/1046). The Administrative Court, Blagoevgrad takes 
the view that the ZOP confers on contracting authorities the discretion to assess, in 
each individual case, the number of persons with whom they will negotiate the 
deadline for the performance of the contract and other circumstances relevant to 
the successful completion of the procedure, on the basis of the specific 
requirements of the subject matter of the contract. In that context, it concluded 
that the choice of one or other of the equally lawful options does not constitute an 
infringement of the rules on the designation of a contractor under the ZOP, with 
the result that there is no irregularity within the meaning of Article 70(1), point 9, 
of the ZUSESIF. 
11 The Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) is now seised 
of an appeal in cassation brought by the Head of the Managing Authority against 
the judgment of the Administrative Court, Blagoevgrad. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
12 In the main proceedings, the appellant in cassation reiterates the position that it 
expressed in its statement of reasons for the administrative act issued by it, and 
adds that the exercise of the contracting authority’s discretion must not run 
counter to the purpose of the law and the fundamental principles of national and 
EU law. It states that, where there are two or more lawful options, the contracting 
authority is obliged to choose the one which is the most economical to implement 
and the most favourable to the State and society. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-376/21 
 
6  
13 The respondent in the appeal in cassation – the beneficiary municipality – argues 
that that appeal in cassation is unfounded. Aside from the arguments that it had 
already put forward before the managing authority and the court of first instance, 
it cites a number of decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court in similar 
cases in which it was held that, in the cases examined [by the Supreme 
Administrative Court], the contracting authority could invite only one economic 
operator to negotiate and that Regulation 2018/1046 is not applicable, since it 
does not govern procurement procedures carried out by national contracting 
authorities. 
14 The public prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura (Supreme 
Administrative Public Prosecutor’s Office) who is handling the case concluded 
that the decision of the court of first instance is correct, but stated that it is 
necessary to make a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of 
Article 160(2) and Article 164(1)(d) of Regulation 2018/1046 and Article 32(2) to 
(5) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 
2014 L 94, p. 65). 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
15 The case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court to date has expressed two 
opposing views on the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of 
domestic and EU law. 
16 According to one of those views, negotiating with only one specific economic 
operator in the case referred to in Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP constitutes an 
infringement of the rules on the award of contracts, since it is contrary to 
Article 2(1), point 2, and Article 2(2) of the ZOP, leading to an unjustified 
elimination of competition and precluding the possibility of selecting an economic 
operator which will achieve the highest quality of performance at the most 
favourable price. In support of that viewpoint, it is stated that the principle of free 
competition is relevant to all public procurement procedures. The provision in 
Article 18(7) of the ZOP emphasises the general possibility for the contracting 
authority to conduct negotiations with one or more precisely specified persons 
within the framework of negotiated procedures without prior publication. 
However, negotiations with a single economic operator are treated as permissible 
in the exception under Article 79(1), point 3, of the ZOP only where the purpose 
of the contract is the creation or acquisition of a unique work of art or piece of 
creative work, where there is no competition for technical reasons, or where 
exclusive rights exist, including intellectual property rights. Save in cases of 
emergency, exceptional circumstances, a specific purpose, unique subject matter 
of the contract or other special features of the contract that justify inviting a single 
contractor to negotiate, it is unlawful to negotiate with only one person. Inviting 
only one economic operator runs counter to the provision of Article 160(2) of 
Regulation 2018/1046, according to which all contracts are to be put out to 
OBSHTINA RAZLOG 
 
7 
competition on the broadest possible basis, whereby the exception provided for 
(Article 164(1)(d) of that regulation) is not applicable in the case referred to in 
Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP. If the possibility to negotiate the terms of 
performance of a contract with a single economic operator is used when the 
activities to be awarded do not have special characteristics, this creates the 
conditions for abuse of power on the part of the contracting authority and for 
abuse on the part of the economic operators and, consequently, may lead to 
serious anti-competitive consequences and undermine the objective of the law of 
allocating public financial resources in a cost-effective manner (Article 1 of the 
ZOP). 
17 That position is opposed by the contrary view, according to which negotiations 
with a single economic operator under the conditions of Article 79(1), point 1, of 
the ZOP are lawful. It is argued in that regard that, in the case referred to in 
Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP, the legislature considered it permissible to 
restrict the principles according to which public contracts should be performed, 
because facts and circumstances beyond the control of the contracting authority 
(lack of interest of economic operators or unsuitable tenders) created an objective 
situation in which the contracting authority could not carry out the procurement 
and satisfy the relevant public interest. The restriction is permissible if the 
principles were duly respected when the public tender was originally announced, 
but no contractor could be selected due to the lack of a participating person 
meeting the requirements. If the legislature had considered it necessary for the 
contracting authority to invite more than one economic operator to negotiate in 
order to guarantee legal principles in such a case, the legislature would have made 
express provision to that effect. In the case of Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP, 
the subject matter of the public contract has no legal significance as such, nor does 
the question of whether that subject matter could objectively be performed by 
another economic operator that was not invited to negotiate. Otherwise, an 
infringement of the principle of free competition could always be established, for 
example if the contracting authority has invited only two of a potential two 
hundred economic operators that could perform the contract. Moreover, 
Regulation 2018/1046 is not applicable, as it does not concern legal relations 
relating to the execution of public contracts in the Member States, but rather legal 
relations relating to the establishment and implementation of the budget of the 
Union. The provisions of Article 160 et seq. of Regulation 2018/1046, which 
contain requirements in the area of public procurement, are not requirements for 
national contracting authorities. National contracting authorities are subject to the 
provisions of Directive 2014/24, which were implemented in the ZOP. 
18 In view of the lack of uniformity in the national case-law, the referring court 
wishes to state the following in relation to the present case. 
19 It is true that, since it is expressly provided for, the exception to the principle of 
competition on the broadest possible basis must be observed. Nevertheless, that 
exception must be interpreted narrowly, as it is an exception to a fundamental 
principle. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-376/21 
 
8  
20 In that context, questions arise as to the limits and content of the exception 
provided for in Article 160(2) of Regulation No 2018/1046, read in conjunction 
with Article 164(1)(d) thereof (does it preclude only one economic operator from 
being invited to negotiate and, if so, does it apply to all cases of negotiated 
procedure without prior publication and, in particular, to a case such as that 
provided for in Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP? Are the subject matter of the 
public contract and the fact that it can objectively be performed by more than one 
economic operator also relevant? Must justification be provided for the decision to 
invite a specific candidate to negotiate?), and the question arises as to the criteria 
according to which the contracting authority has invited a very specific economic 
operator, in so far as there are other economic operators with the capacity and 
capability to perform the contract. 
21 The examination of the question as to how the exception provided for in 
Article 160(2) of Regulation 2018/1046 manifests itself – a total elimination of 
competition or only a level of competition lower than the highest possible level – 
is also relevant in the present case. In other words, where the subject matter of the 
contract is not special in nature, does a total restriction of competition in a 
procedure such as that at issue in the present case constitute a permissible 
exception to the principle of awarding public contracts on the broadest possible 
competitive basis within the meaning of the regulation? 
22 It should also be taken into account that the provision of Article 160(2) of 
Regulation 2018/1046 exceptionally allows for a derogation from the principle of 
awarding public contracts on the broadest possible competitive basis, but does not 
provide for a derogation from the principles of equal treatment and non-
discrimination (Article 160(1) of the regulation, Article 2, point 1, of the ZOP), 
which are considered to have been infringed according to the decision of the Head 
of the Managing Authority imposing a financial correction. Therefore, the 
question as to whether it is justified under EU law to invite only one specific 
person to conclude a contract in the present case must be assessed not only from 
the point of view of the principle of free competition, but also from the point of 
view of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. 
23 In the national law, Article 18(7) of the ZOP, provision is made, in principle, for 
the possibility of the contracting authority to conduct negotiations in negotiated 
procedures in order to determine the terms of the contract with one or more 
precisely specified persons, without that general rule distinguishing between the 
individual conditions under which an award is permissible under that procedure 
conducted on an exceptional basis. The specific cases which fall within the scope 
of the exception are regulated in the relevant place within the scheme of that law – 
in Article 79 (‘Negotiated procedure without prior publication’), in Article 182 
(‘Direct negotiation with certain persons’) and in Article 191 (‘Invitation of 
certain persons [to negotiate]’). 
24 In order to answer the question raised in the main proceedings, it is necessary to 
compare the various conditions justifying the use of a negotiated procedure, 
OBSHTINA RAZLOG 
 
9 
including without prior publication. The first sentence of Article 164(4) of 
Regulation 2018/1046 reads as follows: ‘In all procedures involving negotiation, 
the contracting authority shall negotiate with tenderers the initial and any 
subsequent tenders or parts thereof, except their final tenders, in order to improve 
their content.’ In the wording of the cited provision, it is noticeable that the word 
‘tenderer’ is used only in the plural – ‘tenderers’. The national legislature also 
opted for a similar approach in Article 64(1) and (3) of the PPZOP, in 
Article 182(1) of the ZOP and partly in Article 191(1) of the ZOP. Therefore, the 
assessment of whether negotiations with a single tenderer are permissible in the 
present case requires a comparative analysis of all the negotiation scenarios. 
25 The answer to these questions is relevant for the purposes of definitively 
clarifying the question under consideration, as to whether there has been an 
infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and free 
competition, or of the rules governing the award of public contracts, where, in a 
negotiated procedure without prior publication, the invitation to conclude the 
contract is addressed to only one person, in so far as the previous procedure, in 
which all interested parties were able to submit a tender, was discontinued owing 
to the lack of a suitable tender and there has been no change to the terms of the 
contract, the subject matter of which, however, does not have a special feature by 
virtue of which it is predestined to be performed exclusively by the economic 
operator invited to the negotiations. 
26 In the light of the conflicting positions of the parties as to the applicability of 
Article 160(1) and (2) of Regulation 2018/1046 to national contracting authorities, 
the referring court takes the view that it is possible to interpret the provisions of 
that regulation in two ways, thereby necessitating clarification as to their precise 
meaning by way of the preliminary ruling procedure. On the one hand, it is logical 
to assume that the applicability of the provision cited depends not on the type of 
contracting authority (EU institution or national contracting authority), but on the 
specific nature of the public financial resources spent, the budget of the European 
Union, that is to say, the rules of the regulation apply whenever funds from the 
budget of the Union are spent. The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly 
applicable in all Member States. Since the Member States implement the budget 
jointly and indirectly, they are also subject to the procurement rules provided for 
in the regulation. On the other hand, that assumption is precluded by the definition 
of a public contract in Article 2, point 51, of the regulation, which covers only 
contracting authorities within the meaning of Articles 174 and 178 of the 
regulation, that is to say only EU institutions. The described ambiguity regarding 
the scope of Article 160(1) and (2) of the regulation with regard to procurement 
procedures conducted by beneficiaries of ESIF funds in their capacity as national 
contracting authorities can be removed by an interpretation of that provision by 
the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
27 In consideration of the temporal application of the rules, the referring court takes 
into account the fact that the relevant legal facts in the present case materialised 
before the entry into force of Regulation 2018/1046, that is to say, during the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-376/21 
 
10  
period of application of Regulation No 966/2012. It should be noted that the 
decision imposing a financial correction was issued after the entry into force of 
Regulation 2018/1046, that is to say, after the repeal of Regulation No 966/2012. 
However, in so far as the provision of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046, which 
the head of the administrative authority considered to have been infringed, is 
identical in content to that of Article 102(1) and (2) of Regulation No 966/2012, 
read in conjunction with Article 104(1)(d) thereof, which is in fact applicable to 
the facts established, an interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of the cited provisions of the repealed regulation in the light of the present 
case would be relevant to the resolution of the dispute for reasons analogous to 
those set out above. 
28 The questions raised above in relation to the limits, content and manifestation of 
the exception in question also relate to the interpretation of Article 102(1) and (2) 
of Regulation No 966/2012, read in conjunction with Article 104(1)(d) thereof. In 
that respect, it should be emphasised that Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, 
Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (repealed) expressly 
establishes a minimum number of three participants (Article 128) in order to 
guarantee the lawful conduct of the procedure governed by Article 134(1)(a) of 
the Delegated Regulation, which corresponds to the case referred to in 
Article 79(1), point 1, of the ZOP. According to Article 128 of the Delegated 
Regulation, the number of candidates invited to tender must be sufficient to ensure 
genuine competition. 
29 An argument militating in favour of the permissibility of the requested 
interpretation of Article 160(1) and (2) of Regulation 2018/1046, read in 
conjunction with Article 164(1)(d) thereof, and of Article 102(1) and (2) of 
Regulation No 966/2012, read in conjunction with Article 104(1)(d) thereof, can 
be drawn from the rule in Article 281(3) of Regulation 2018/1046, according to 
which references to the repealed Regulation are to be construed as references to 
this Regulation and are to be read in accordance with the correlation table in 
Annex II. The correlation table in Annex II shows that Article 160 corresponds to 
Article 102 of the repealed regulation, and Article 164 corresponds to the repealed 
Article 104. The two regulations regulate, at different times, the same subject 
matter, namely the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. 
Article 281(3) of Regulation 2018/1046 bears out the legal-logical and historical 
relationship that exists between the repealed and the current rules in terms of the 
periods of validity established and the similarity of the decisions taken by virtue 
of those rules in relation to the legal relationships covered by their identical 
regulatory subject matter. 
30 The need for an interpretation of the relevant provisions of repealed Regulation 
No 966/2012 and Regulation No 2018/1046 is also brought about by the fact that 
the entities covered as ‘contracting authorities’ within the meaning of each 
regulation are delineated differently. In the present case, the contract, for the 
OBSHTINA RAZLOG 
 
11 
financing of which ESIF resources were made available, was awarded by the 
Mayor of the municipality of Razlog, which has the status of contracting authority 
within the meaning of Article 5(2), point 9, of the ZOP, in the procedure under the 
ZOP. 
31 With regard to Directive 2014/24/EU, the referring court’s assessment is that it is 
not applicable to the proceedings before the national court, since the value of the 
public contract at issue is below the thresholds of that directive.