The respect due to the transparency principle in public procurement law is embodied by the obligation to publish in advance a contract award notice. In Sweden an award in breach of the named obligation is subject to a stricter regime of penalties according to national law, though the application of the prescribed sanction has been limited to awards being initiated subsequent to 15 July 2010. Judicial proceedings at last instance have been kept and a final judgment has been given in favour of the contracting authority. The Supreme Administrative Court interprets the national public procurement law by making reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice, but despite the fact that material question in the present trial is not identical with any of the questions already decided, no reference for a preliminary ruling has been made. The concepts specific to public procurement law must be interpreted uniformly across the EU, irrespective of the Member States’ right to make specific choices, such as the choice of applying a stricter regime of sanctions. Is the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the national public procurement law in line with Union law? Is the obligation in article 267(3) TFEU to refer for a preliminary ruling fulfilled? Is the protection of the individual rights arising from Union law ensured? These questions are approached by the present dissertation.