Judgment of the Supreme Court, Third Chamber, Administrative-Contentious No. 50/2026, of January 26, rec. 20/2023
The Supreme Court judgment No. 50/2026, of January 26, resolves the appeal filed by Adasa Sistemas, S.A.U. against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia of September 28, 2022. The core of the debate focuses on determining which administrative authority has the competence to decide and specify the prohibition of contracting when there is a definitive sanction for distortion of competition.
1. Background
The Catalan Competition Authority declared the existence of a unique and continuous infringement consisting of collusive agreements to allocate the market in various public contracts related to radars and meteorological stations of the Meteorological Service of Catalonia. As a result, it imposed a financial penalty on Adasa and a prohibition on contracting for 18 months, limited to certain contracts of the SMC. The High Inspection of Justice of Catalonia reduced the fine to €140,067, but maintained the prohibition on contracting.
2. Issue of interest for cassation
The Supreme Court considers that there is an objective interest in clarifying the jurisprudence regarding the prohibition of contracting in the field of competition law and, specifically, in determining, from the perspective of Article 53 of the Competition Defense Law and Article 72.2 of the Public Sector Contracts Law, which administrative authority is competent to impose and define this prohibition.
3. Doctrine of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court declares that the prohibition on contracting provided for in Article 71.1b of the LCSP is not an autonomous sanction, but a consequence ex lege arising from the definitive imposition of a sanction for distortion of competition. The High Inspection states that Article 72 of the LCSP establishes a two-level system: as a general rule, the administrative authority that imposes the sanction can resolve on the scope and duration of the prohibition in the same sanctioning resolution; only subsidiarily, when there is no such resolution, is the specific procedure assigned to the Ministry of Finance applicable.
The judgment considers that this regime is compatible with Directive 2014/24/EU and with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as it preserves the contracting authority's ability to assess the prohibition of contracting in each specific procedure, without attributing to the competition authority an exclusive automatic exclusion power.
4. Aspect of interest for companies contracting with the public sector
The judgment No. 50/2026 of the Supreme Court consolidates the doctrine that both state and regional competition authorities are empowered to determine in their own sanctioning resolutions the scope and duration of the prohibition on contracting due to distortion of competition, and the procedure provided for in Article 72.3 of the LCSP remains a subsidiary mechanism. The judgment reinforces legal certainty and coherence between competition law and public procurement.
This possibility may lead to a declaration of a greater number of prohibitions on contracting, as competition authorities now have their own jurisdiction in this matter, without the need to refer the case to another administrative body for processing.
Informative note written by Jorge González, partner of Public and Regulatory Law at ECIJA Madrid.
Related professionals
LATEST FROM #ECIJA
In regulation, as in other areas, the key question is not so much how many people make decisions, but how they make them and under what safeguards. And in this regard, the answer lies less in making minor reforms and more in reforming more effectively.
Following 43 months of legislative debate, the proposed structural reform presents regulatory and implementation opportunities and challenges that will be central to the well-being of Costa Rican society.
On 28 May 2026, the Executive sent to Congress a draft law to regulate the management of interests before national public bodies.
ECIJA Barcelona is positioned as a strategic ally of the digital health ecosystem thanks to its transversal approach that connects law, technology and business.
The Supreme Court reaffirms its position on how the acceptance of extensions in public procurement contracts affects the contractor's right to claim compensation for the extension of the execution period.
Ecija announces the addition of Elías Soley as a partner, accompanied by his team of experts in TMT, public policy, energy and public procurement.
The STS 110/2026 confirms that urban planning can impose reservations for social housing in the consolidated city without, in itself, generating an automatic right to compensation.
The judgment No. 50/2026 of the Supreme Court establishes that the prohibition of contracting is not an autonomous sanction, but a legal consequence arising from a definitive infringement in the field of competition, and confirms that the same sanctioning authority can specify its scope and duration.
From 1 July 2026, light commercial vehicles (LCVs) over 2.5 tonnes and up to 3.5 tonnes performing international transport or cabotage for hire or reward will be subject to a new European regulatory framework resulting from the Mobility Package I.
