Can the EU legally mandate numerical targets for European tech procurement, or does that breach single-market and WTO rules?

► President
I open this deliberation on a demand for a Small Business Act and a Buy European Tech Act, requiring numerical targets for public and private-sector tech procurement to favour European companies. The framing is strategic autonomy and competitiveness: Europe needs tech champions, not to feed non-EU giants. The tension is immediate: single-market law, state-aid rules, WTO obligations and competition law all cut against mandatory European preference. The demand is not frivolous — it names a genuine problem of market concentration and American and Chinese dominance. The legal basis for what is being asked is unclear, and that is the first thing the College must untangle. Public procurement can be steered toward European SMEs within the Public Procurement Directive; private-sector purchasing is harder to mandate without crossing into state aid or anti-competitive conduct. The WTO Government Procurement Agreement limits what the EU can do unilaterally in public contracts.
[EUR-Lex — verify Directive 2014/24/EU; TFEU Art. 114; WTO GPA]

► Commissioner · Internal Market
This portfolio leads. Let me set out what is legally possible and what is not. In public procurement, the Public Procurement Directive allows the contracting authority to use social and environmental criteria and value for money in awarding contracts. A contracting authority can favour European SMEs but not via an absolute numerical quota or a blanket European-preference rule that locks out non-EU tenderers. What is permissible: technical criteria that reward European origin if technically justified; qualitative SME-support criteria — experience, capacity, references from EU firms; weighted scoring that favours European firms within an open process. What is forbidden: we will buy 70 percent from European firms — that is blanket discrimination violating the principle of non-discrimination under Article 18 TFEU and breaches the GPA. In private-sector purchasing, the demand falls flat legally. The EU cannot mandate that private undertakings reserve a percentage of purchases for European suppliers without crossing into state aid or abuse of dominance. There is no legal base. My recommendation: reject the numerical-target model as legally indefensible and propose instead a SME-focused procurement strategy — lower barriers to European SME participation, use the Chips Act and Net-Zero Industry Act for strategic industrial investment, and accept that private purchasing is off-limits.
[EUR-Lex — verify Directive 2014/24/EU; TFEU Art. 18; GPA Arts. 4, 8]

► EVP · Economy
Support for industrial policy, but the legal route matters. A numerical Buy European target breaches single-market rules and triggers retaliation. Use instead the Chips Act, Net-Zero Industry Act, EDIP and structural funds to build supply-chain capacity. That is state-aid-compliant industrial policy. On SME support via procurement, align with Internal Market's approach.

► Commissioner · Trade
Strong reservation — the GPA is a binding commitment. Article 4 GPA requires non-discriminatory treatment for goods and services of any GPA member; Article 8 sets out fairness and transparency. A numerical European-preference violates both. If the EU adopts a Buy European Tech Act with quotas, trading partners — US, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, all GPA signatories — will file complaints at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. The EU will lose. And we will be in no position to object when they deploy Buy American or Buy Japan policies. A Small Business Act is defensible if applied transparently within the GPA; a numerical quota is not.
[EUR-Lex — verify GPA Arts. 4, 8; GATT/GPA case law]

► Commissioner · Competition
No objection to SME support, but numerical targets that mandate European preference in private purchasing would be state aid and potentially abuse of dominance if imposed on a firm with market power. Article 107 TFEU requires any aid to be notified and compatible with the common market. An unnotified mandate to buy European is illegal aid. If a dominant platform is forced to favour European suppliers, that is a restriction on its customers' purchasing freedom. I will not bless this legally.
[EUR-Lex — verify TFEU Art. 107]

► Commissioner · Budget
The funding question. A Small Business Act using divided public-procurement lots, preferential payment terms for SMEs and technical assistance is fundable within the budget ceilings. A numerical quota that requires the EU to subsidise European firms' higher costs or to guarantee purchases is a contingent liability that must be budgeted explicitly. I want clarity on whether this is budget-neutral via reallocated procurement spending or requires new appropriations.

► Commissioner · Research & Innovation
Support for European SME and startup capacity-building, but via the Horizon Europe framework, the European Innovation Council and venture-capital blending instruments, not via purchasing mandates. Let the market discover winners and invest in their research and scale. Mandatory purchasing is a blunt instrument that locks in today's players and chills tomorrow's innovation.

► EVP · Digital
No objection to SME support, but one boundary: do not carve out tech procurement from the DSA or DMA framework. If we mandate European preference, we risk creating gatekeepers that the DMA would then have to discipline separately. European tech leadership should come from innovation and scale, not regulatory preference.

► President
I read the room. There is clear majority on SME support and industrial policy. There is clear majority against numerical quotas in procurement. The tensions are these. Industrial policy versus single-market law — everyone wants European tech champions, but Internal Market and Trade converge: numerical targets breach the non-discrimination principle under Article 18 TFEU and the GPA. A Court challenge or WTO dispute would annul any such law. Public versus private procurement — public contracts can be steered toward SMEs within transparent, non-discriminatory criteria; private purchasing cannot be mandated at EU level without state-aid or competition violations. The legal route matters — the Chips Act, EDIP and structural funds are the permissible levers; numerical quotas are not. And external exposure — GPA signatories will retaliate; the EU will lose at the WTO. No blocking objection explicitly, but Trade and Competition are firm that numerical quotas in public contracts violate binding trade law. I record consensus on a reframed position: reject numerical quotas, advance a SME-focused procurement strategy within legal bounds. No formal vote.
[review — political judgement required on EU-wide SME messaging]

Deliberation closed · 9 positions recorded