Stating that 'procurement rules were violated' and referring to attached emails does not constitute a legal argument — not even in urgent proceedings
The Council of State rejects an application for suspension of an award for print and lettering work because the petition contained no legal argument: it merely stated 'violation of procurement rules' and referred to attached email correspondence.
What happened?
The city of Turnhout put out a public procurement for the supply and installation of print and lettering work for 2025-2029 through an open procedure. Five companies submitted tenders. After the regularity review and evaluation against award criteria, GNC Group Int. was ranked second. On 3 July 2025, the award went to the first-ranked company. GNC Group filed for suspension under extreme urgency. In its petition, it stated it sought suspension 'due to violation of procurement rules' — specifically the principle of equality, transparency, and the obligation of proper reasoning. But it did not explain how those rules were concretely violated. The only supporting evidence: a reference to 'attached email correspondence'. Those emails consisted of messages previously sent to the city, in which GNC Group explained its four-year track record as a supplier and its own assessment of its tender. The Council of State was brief and clear. A legal argument requires a sufficiently clear description of the violated legal rule and the way in which the contested decision concretely violates that rule. GNC Group's approach — a vague reference to 'procurement rules' plus a referral to attachments — effectively left it to the respondent and the Council to construct a legal argument. That is inadmissible. The application was rejected, with costs: EUR 200 court fee, EUR 26 contribution, and EUR 770 legal costs payable to the city of Turnhout.
Why does this matter?
Extreme urgency proceedings move fast and pressure is high. But that doesn't change the basic rule: your petition must contain a concrete legal argument. 'The procurement rules were violated' followed by a reference to attachments is not enough. The Council does not draft your petition for you.
The lesson
If you want to challenge an award decision before the Council of State, you must explain in the petition itself — not in attachments — which legal rule was violated and how. Give your lawyer a framework: which specific assessment was wrong, which criterion was misapplied, which reasoning is missing? A complaint letter to the contracting authority is not a petition.
Ask yourself
If you're considering urgent proceedings: does your petition contain, for each argument, a concrete description of (1) which legal rule was violated and (2) how the contested decision concretely violates that rule? Or does it only refer to attached emails?
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →