Other
This category covers rulings on various topics that do not fall under a specific theme: withdrawal of decisions, framework agreements, technical specifications, procedural issues and sector-specific questions.
A signed contract does not protect your award — the contracting authority can still withdraw it up to 60 days later
The Council of State dismisses the extreme-urgency appeal of a contractor whose award was withdrawn after the contracting authority discovered that the engineering office had wrongly scored a bid, and confirms that the classical withdrawal doctrine applies — even when the contract has already been signed.
You filed a suspension within 15 days, cleanly motivated — but you forgot to write 'extreme urgency' in the title, so it's inadmissible
The Council of State dismisses Home 88's suspension request against the €100,000 award to Renotec because the title of the petition does not explicitly mention 'extreme urgency' procedure — even though it was filed on time and contained a section 'urgency'.
Your award was annulled, but that doesn't entitle you to full lost revenue — the Council of State awards 5% of the offer price, not 73%
Following the annulment of the SEN5 award in judgment 260,900, Pluris claimed €69,506 in damages based on lost revenue; the Council of State recognises only a 50% loss of chance and awards €4,742.50 — 5% of the offer price of €94,850.
Wanneer de aanbestedende overheid de gunning intrekt nadat een schorsingsarrest is gewezen, wordt het afstand van geding vastgesteld en draagt de overheid de kosten
De Raad van State stelt het afstand van geding vast in het vernietigingsberoep tegen de beslissing van de NMBS om de offerte van AGC Glass Europe als laattijdig te verwerpen, nadat de NMBS in de loop van de procedure had afgezien van de gunning van de opdracht — de eerder bevolen schorsing wordt opgeheven en de kosten vallen ten laste van de NMBS.
If you don't challenge a procurement withdrawal head-on, you can't attack it later through the back door
The Council of State rejects two annulment actions against a restarted procurement because the applicant is in reality attacking an earlier withdrawal decision whose lawfulness has already been definitively confirmed in prior rulings.
An unsigned internal spreadsheet as your sole proof of bankruptcy risk won't buy you a suspension
The Council of State rejects Lime's suspension action against a Brussels license award because the alleged threat to economic viability rests on a single confidential, unsigned document, and because Lime itself contributed to the damage by substantially expanding its fleet after being warned its license would expire.
An annulment action that lasts less than a month: the municipality simply withdraws — and pays €996 to the unsuccessful surveyor
The Council of State dismisses the annulment action filed by BV T. against the award decision of the Oudsbergen municipality because that decision has since been withdrawn, but orders the municipality to bear €996 in procedural costs because it was the authority that deprived the action of its purpose.
When the contracting authority withdraws after a suspension, you don't need an annulment action — and you still recover your costs
The Council of State formally lifts the earlier-granted suspension and orders Logivesdre to bear the procedural costs, because the authority itself withdrew the contested award decision — meaning the applicants did not need to file an annulment action.
If the contracting authority withdraws the contested decision, you end up as the 'winning party' — even when your appeal loses its object
The Council of State declares the action without object after the contracting authority's withdrawal, but still orders the authority to bear the full procedural costs (€1,218) because the disappearance of the contested act is treated as equivalent to an annulment.
Your suspension is a deposit, not a final victory — miss the annulment action and it evaporates
The Council of State automatically lifts a previously granted suspension because Eloy Travaux failed to file an annulment action after the 20 January 2025 suspension, and orders the contractor to bear the costs.
When the contracting authority withdraws its award after your suspension, your annulment action is declared moot — but you still recover the procedural indemnity
The Council of State lifts the extreme-urgency suspension of 24 January 2025, declares the annulment action devoid of purpose, and orders the Flemish Community to bear the costs (€1,372 to the applicant and €150 to the intervening party) because the authority itself withdrew the contested award decision after the suspension.
De intrekking van de gunningsbeslissing maakt de vordering tot schorsing onontvankelijk — ook al zou de intrekkingsbeslissing later zelf kunnen worden ingetrokken of vernietigd
De Raad van State verwerpt de vordering tot schorsing bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid van de gunning van een opdracht voor de 24/7-exploitatie van de radiodispatching van Brussel Mobiliteit, omdat de verwerende partij de gunningsbeslissing had ingetrokken met terugwerkende kracht — zodat de verzoeker op het ogenblik van de uitspraak niet meer was of dreigde te worden geschaad, en het louter hypothetische scenario dat de intrekkingsbeslissing later zou worden herroepen niet in aanmerking kon worden genomen.
A registered letter from the Council of State left unclaimed? Six years of litigation for nothing
The Council of State declares the applicant's withdrawal in a six-year-old annulment case against a selection decision by TMVW (Flemish water utility), because the applicant left a registered letter with the negative auditor's report unclaimed at bpost and then failed to file a request to continue proceedings.
Afstand van geding vóór de terechtzitting leidt niet automatisch tot verlaging van de rechtsplegingsvergoeding — de criteria voor afwijking van het basisbedrag zijn limitatief
De Raad van State verleent akte van de afstand van geding in een vordering tegen de niet-selectie voor een raamovereenkomst voor cateringdiensten in crematoria, en kent het basisbedrag van de rechtsplegingsvergoeding toe aan de verwerende partij — omdat het tijdstip van de afstand geen wettelijk criterium is om af te wijken van het basisbedrag en de verwerende partij al een inhoudelijke nota had ingediend.
Intrekking van de gunningsbeslissing en stopzetting van de plaatsingsprocedure maken de vordering tot schorsing zonder voorwerp — ook het onderdeel tegen de bestekbeslissing
De Raad van State verwerpt de vordering tot schorsing bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid van de gunning van een opdracht voor de inzameling van gebruikt textiel, omdat de gemeente de gunningsbeslissing had ingetrokken en de plaatsingsprocedure had stopgezet, waardoor de vordering zonder voorwerp was geworden en de verzoekende partijen ook geen belang meer hadden bij de schorsing van de bestekbeslissing.
Afstand van geding bij een vordering tot schorsing van de gunning van dakwerken en gevelbekleding aan een middelbare school
De Raad van State verleent akte van de afstand van geding door de verzoekende partij in een vordering tot schorsing bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid tegen de gunning van een opdracht voor dakwerken en gevelbekleding bij de verbouwing van een middelbare school.
Forgot to pay the €226 filing fee? Your urgent suspension is automatically dismissed
The Council of State dismisses an urgent suspension request against the award of a school renovation works package, because the applicant neither attended the hearing nor paid the €200 filing fee and €26 contribution before the close of debate.
Afstand van geding door de verzoeker — wie afziet van zijn beroep draagt de proceskosten
De Raad van State neemt akte van de afstand van geding door SRL Postalia Belgium in een vernietigingsberoep tegen de gunning van een opdracht voor postdiensten aan de gemeente Courcelles, en legt de proceskosten — inclusief een rechtsplegingsvergoeding van 770 euro — ten laste van de verzoeker.
Intrekking van de gunningsbeslissing maakt de vordering tot schorsing zonder voorwerp
De Raad van State verwerpt de vordering tegen de gunning van een raamovereenkomst voor signalisatie- en beursmateriaal, omdat de VDAB de bestreden gunningsbeslissing had ingetrokken vóór de terechtzitting, waardoor de vordering — ook wat de impliciete beslissing tot niet-gunning betreft — zonder voorwerp was geworden.
Withdrawing your appeal isn't free — even when there's no apparent 'loser'
A contractor who withdraws its emergency suspension request against the municipality of Grimbergen asks for a refund of court fees because there is 'no losing party', but the Council of State rules that whoever withdraws is by definition the unsuccessful party — and pays.
Een vordering bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid vereist minstens één ernstig middel — feitelijke grieven zonder verwijzing naar een geschonden rechtsregel volstaan niet
De Raad van State verwerpt de vordering van een Duitse GmbH tegen de gunning van een opdracht voor containers met chips voor de regio IMOG als niet-ontvankelijk, omdat het verzoekschrift geen ernstig middel bevatte: de verzoekende partij klaagde over een 'gebrekkige' en 'niet-transparante' beoordeling en over 'misbruik van discretionaire bevoegdheid', maar gaf nergens aan welke concrete rechtsregel was geschonden en hoe — en het komt niet aan het auditoraat of de Raad van State toe om in de plaats van de verzoekende partij het middel te formuleren.
Vijf opeenvolgende beroepen tegen dezelfde opdracht leiden niet automatisch tot een verhoogde rechtsplegingsvergoeding wegens 'kennelijk onredelijke situatie'
De Raad van State stelt vast dat het beroep tegen de vijfde opeenvolgende gunningsbeslissing voor een opdracht voor onderhoud van autosnelwegbermen zonder voorwerp is geworden na intrekking, maar kent slechts het basisbedrag van 770 euro aan rechtsplegingsvergoeding toe — het loutere feit dat dezelfde opdracht al vijfmaal aanleiding heeft gegeven tot gecensureerde beslissingen maakt op zich geen 'kennelijk onredelijke situatie' uit in de zin van artikel 30/1 van de Gecoördineerde Wetten op de Raad van State.
RTBF could not procure its own statutory auditor — that power belongs to the French Community Government
The Council of State annuls RTBF's decision to designate its statutory auditor for 2023-2025 via a public procurement procedure, because the decree of 9 January 2003 vests that designation power exclusively in the French Community Government — a mere formal post-hoc approval does not suffice.
Unilateral termination of a public contract for political reasons? Still the jurisdiction of the civil courts — not the Council of State
When a contracting authority unilaterally terminates a public works contract on the basis of Article 1794 of the old Belgian Civil Code, it exercises a contractual prerogative — even when the real reason is political (the Walloon Government's post-election 2024 decision to abandon the Liège tram project) — and the Council of State is prima facie without jurisdiction.
De Raad van State heeft geen rechtsmacht als het beroep in werkelijkheid een contractueel geschil betreft — het verpakken van contractuele claims als schendingen van beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur volstaat niet
De Raad van State verklaart zich zonder rechtsmacht om kennis te nemen van de beroepen tot nietigverklaring tegen de goedkeuring van de lastvoorwaarden en de gunning van een concessie voor bovengronds parkeerbeheer in de stad Mortsel, omdat het werkelijk en rechtstreeks voorwerp van de beroepen een betwisting over subjectieve rechten uit een samenwerkingsovereenkomst voor de bouw en exploitatie van een ondergrondse parkeergarage betreft — de aangevoerde schendingen van beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur zijn een herformulering van de contractuele wanprestatie die de verzoekende partij reeds bij de burgerlijke rechter had ingeroepen.
Geen verzoek tot voortzetting na verwerping UDN leidt tot vermoeden van afstand van geding — gevorderde verhoging van de rechtsplegingsvergoeding wordt geweigerd bij versnelde afdoening
De Raad van State spreekt de afstand van geding uit nadat de verzoekende partijen — een tijdelijke maatschap wier offerte voor een raamovereenkomst voor geofysisch bodemonderzoek substantieel onregelmatig was bevonden — na de verwerping van hun UDN-vordering bij arrest nr. 262.413 van 19 februari 2025 geen verzoek tot voortzetting van de vernietigingsprocedure indienden binnen de wettelijke termijn van dertig dagen na kennisgeving, en herleidt de door de verwerende partij gevorderde rechtsplegingsvergoeding van 924 euro tot het basisbedrag van 770 euro omdat bij versnelde afdoening via artikel 11/3 geen verhoging verschuldigd is.
Intrekking van de bestreden beslissing maakt de schorsingsvordering zonder voorwerp — verkorte afhandeling is geen wettelijk criterium om de rechtsplegingsvergoeding te verminderen
De Raad van State verwerpt de vordering tot schorsing bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid van de gunning van een raamovereenkomst voor archeologiediensten als zonder voorwerp nadat de aanbestedende overheid de bestreden beslissingen heeft ingetrokken, maar kent de verzoekende partij het basisbedrag van 770 euro rechtsplegingsvergoeding toe — het verzoek van de verwerende partij om dat bedrag te verminderen wegens verkorte afhandeling wordt afgewezen omdat de drie wettelijke criteria voor vermindering limitatief zijn en verkorte afhandeling daar niet onder valt.
Een schorsingsvordering bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid zonder vernietigingsberoep is onontvankelijk — ook in overheidsopdrachten
De Raad van State verwerpt een schorsingsvordering bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid tegen de gunning van een dienstencontract voor onderhoud van alarmsystemen, omdat de vordering niet werd gevolgd door een vernietigingsberoep binnen de wettelijke termijn van zestig dagen — wat de vordering onontvankelijk maakt, ook in het overheidsopdrachtencontentieux.
Schorsingsvordering bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid zonder vernietigingsberoep is onontvankelijk — ook na negatief auditeursadvies
De Raad van State verwerpt de schorsingsvordering tegen de gunning van vier percelen voor de ontvangst en verwerking van afval in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, omdat de verzoekster na het negatieve auditeursadvies bewust besloot geen vernietigingsberoep in te stellen — waardoor de schorsingsvordering als accessorium onontvankelijk is.
Derde arrest in reeks: schorsingsvordering zonder vernietigingsberoep is onontvankelijk
De Raad van State verwerpt de schorsingsvordering bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid tegen de gunning van een leveringscontract voor een gespecialiseerde 3D-scanner aan Carl Zeiss, omdat de verzoekster na het negatieve auditeursadvies bewust geen vernietigingsberoep instelde — waardoor de schorsingsvordering onontvankelijk is.
Procedural indemnity doesn't double for extreme urgency plus annulment — and 'no hearing' is no ground for awarding the minimum
When Proximus withdrew its annulment challenge against the Fluvius-Telenet NetCo deal after three years of proceedings, the Council of State ruled that Fluvius receives only one procedural indemnity — not two — but increased by 20% above the base amount, and that the absence of a hearing is no special reason to reduce the indemnity to the minimum.
VITO withdraws its own award two weeks before the extreme-urgency hearing: the suspension claim lapses, but Mol pays the bill
After the hearing was fixed in bv S.'s extreme-urgency suspension challenge against VITO's public-cloud framework award, VITO withdrew its own award decision — causing the claim to lapse as moot and be rejected by the Council of State, while VITO still had to bear the procedural costs.
Three months after winning extreme urgency, the suspension is gone: those who don't file annulment undo their own success
Less than three months after forcing extreme-urgency suspension of the City of Beringen's award for the Beverlo cemetery-park infrastructure to V&V Infra, the Council of State lifts that same suspension — because the applicant failed to file an annulment appeal, and the old version of Article 17(4) of the coordinated laws leaves the Council no choice.
Extreme urgency without annulment is a key without a door: Council of State checks itself whether a substantive appeal was filed
Before ruling on Alarmes Coquelet's extreme-urgency suspension request against the award to Dumay-Mior, the Council of State consults its own website, finds that no annulment appeal against the same decision was filed within the statutory deadline, and reopens the debates — because this defect may undermine the admissibility of the suspension request, an issue the parties themselves had not raised.
Even without a bid, you can still demand the paperwork: intermunicipal associations must disclose everything, not only their 'public task'
The Council of State annuls the Flemish FOI appeals body's inadmissibility ruling against Proximus's transparency request on the Fluvius-Telenet NetCo deal, because intermunicipal associations qualify as 'local authorities' under the Governance Decree and are therefore required to disclose all their administrative documents — not only those relating to a 'public task'.
Two letters from the registry, one ignored: Council of State dismisses damages claim because counsel didn't open the second envelope
The Council of State declares a second-ranked bidder's compensation claim concerning a Port of Brussels maintenance framework contract 'not filed' because its lawyers simply failed to open the second e-Procedure letter containing the separate €224 payment invitation — and the 'unavoidable error' plea they invoke is rejected.
Intrekking van de bestreden beslissing? Dan draagt de opdrachtgever de kosten
De Raad van State stelt vast dat een schorsings- en vernietigingsberoep zonder voorwerp is geworden doordat de opdrachtgever de bestreden gunningsbeslissing heeft ingetrokken, en legt de proceskosten ten laste van de opdrachtgever omdat die intrekking een surrogaat is van een vernietiging.
Opdrachtgever trekt gunning in na beroep? De kosten zijn voor hem
De Raad van State verwerpt een schorsingsberoep als onontvankelijk omdat Infrabel de bestreden gunningsbeslissing had ingetrokken, maar legt de proceskosten ten laste van Infrabel omdat de intrekking een surrogaat vormt van een vernietiging.
Schorsing gevraagd maar geen vernietiging ingediend? Dan herbekijkt de Raad je ontvankelijkheid
De Raad van State heropent de debatten in een schorsingszaak over een afvalverwerkingsopdracht omdat de verzoeker blijkbaar geen vernietigingsberoep heeft ingediend, wat de ontvankelijkheid van de schorsingsvordering in het gedrang brengt.
Trekt de opdrachtgever zijn beslissing in, dan vervalt je vordering
De Raad van State wijst een schorsingsberoep af als onontvankelijk omdat de opdrachtgever de bestreden gunningsbeslissing tijdens de procedure heeft ingetrokken met terugwerkende kracht, waardoor de verzoeker niet langer benadeeld is of kan worden.
Brussels social housing companies are not public authorities — always check jurisdiction first
The Council of State rejects Belfoul Industrie's extreme-urgency action against a Logement Bruxellois award not on the merits but for lack of jurisdiction: a Brussels 'société immobilière de service public' is, under established case law, not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 14 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State, so its procurement decisions fall to the civil courts — which the contract notice itself explicitly stated.
Whoever obtains a suspension but then files no annulment action loses that protection automatically — and owes the other side's procedural indemnity
The Council of State lifts the suspension earlier obtained by Jardiparc: Devillers did not file an annulment petition within the statutory deadline, so the law automatically removes the suspension — and the respondent, now regarded as the winning party, collects the €770 procedural indemnity.
Suspension rejected means thirty days to say you're carrying on — Solidairement stayed silent and lost its appeal against the fruit-and-vegetables school contract
The Council of State declares discontinuance of proceedings in the non-profit Solidairement's annulment action against the Walloon Region's award of lots 13 and 17 of a framework agreement for the supply of fruit and vegetables to schools, because the non-profit failed to file a formal request to continue the procedure within the thirty-day statutory deadline after its suspension request was rejected.
Statutes approved on 16 May, delegation signed on 15 May: the Port of Namur awarded one day too early and lost its concession
The Council of State annuls the award of a domain concession because the awarding body — the 'bureau exécutif' — did not yet formally exist in the statutes on the day of the delegation.
A contracting authority that has sat on your bid for 18 months can still walk away from the contract — even when the delay was their own fault
The Belgian Council of State dismisses Krinkels' extreme-urgency challenge against SOFICO's decision not to award three road-verge maintenance contracts: 18 months after bids opened, the tenderers' binding period had expired, and Article 85 of the Public Procurement Law of 17 June 2016 gives the contracting authority broad discretionary power to walk away and relaunch — even when the delay lies entirely with the authority itself.
Signing a contract before the supervisory deadline expires: the risk that your decision still gets annulled is on you
The Council of State rejects the suspension claim of BEP against the Walloon minister's annulment of its temporary staffing contract because BEP itself signed the contract with Randstad before the supervisory deadline had expired — the alleged harms therefore do not flow directly from the challenged annulment, but from their own choice to take the risk.
A municipality that will later have to declare its earthworks to the concession-holder is not, for that reason alone, a valid challenger of the concession award
The Council of State dismisses the city of Andenne's annulment challenge against the Walloon Region's award of the 'soil management and traceability' concession to the non-profit Walterre as inadmissible for lack of standing — as a future user of that service Andenne is not distinguishable from any other landowner in Wallonia who might one day excavate soil.
You can challenge a tender specification, but not four weeks after publication — the clock starts on the contract notice, not on the Q&A forum
The Council of State dismisses Postalia's suspension challenge against the postal-services tender specifications of the Liège water utility CILE: the fifteen-day deadline starts running on the day the contract notice is published (21 February 2024), not on the day the contracting authority posts replies to the Q&A forum, and certainly not when the bidder itself 'becomes convinced' of an irregularity.
You've challenged a public contract award? Forget to pay the €220 court fees and you lose your case without a judge ever reading your arguments
The annulment application of SA Krinkels against the award of the joint Val Benoît site contract to a competitor is struck off the roll because the company did not pay the €200 roll fee and €20 contribution within the thirty-day deadline — the case is lost without any decision on the merits.
When the law names the decision-maker, you cannot sideline that authority through a public procurement procedure
The Council of State suspends RTBF's award for appointing its statutory auditor because the law explicitly assigns that competence to the French Community government — and a purely formal post-hoc approval cannot replace that government's actual decision.
Signed eight days too early: an award to an attorneys' temporary association annulled because the director-general's delegation was published in the Official Gazette only six days later
The Council of State annuls the award of debt-recovery services by intercommunale RESA because the director-general signed on 21 June 2019 on the basis of a delegation that was only published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 27 June 2019 — and was therefore not opposable to the rejected bidder at the moment of the award.
A won UDN suspension without follow-up is a lost UDN suspension
The Council of State lifts the previously ordered suspension of Lantis' selection decision because Proximus failed to file an annulment appeal within the statutory deadline — with reimbursement of procedural costs to the contracting authority as a consequence.
An award decision is not a contract — until closing, the authority can always backtrack
The Council of State confirms that the Flemish Region was allowed to withdraw its award decision to Zidis five months after notification, because the contract had not yet been concluded and Article 85 of the Public Procurement Act 2016 gives the authority the power to halt the procedure at any time before closing — regardless of irregularity.
Wrongly declared irregular? Don't count on 10% — the Council calculates your 'lost chance', and here it landed at 90%
The Council of State awards BV Rezuni 22,695.30 euros in restitution damages (90% of 10% of its offer price) after an earlier annulled award, because the flat-rate 10% rule does not automatically apply and the chance of being awarded the contract is concretely estimated.
Discount for multi-lot award? Then you must rank three times — not once
The Council of State suspends Idelux's award of nine waste-collection lots to Remondis because the intercommunal compared all offers against a single reference point (Remondis with discount) instead of ranking each scenario separately — a calculation error that shifted the outcome in Remondis's favour.
A services concession does not oblige you to conduct a price examination — even if prices differ markedly
The Council of State rejects EMG's claim against the Belgian State concerning the IPC audiovisual concession and explicitly confirms that neither the concession law nor the principles of due care, equality or competition trigger an obligation to conduct a price examination in concessions — a key difference from public procurement regulation.
Annulled award gives second-ranked bidder no 10% lump sum, but 50% chance × 10% margin
Three years after the Council of State annulled the award to Dillen Bouwteam because of un-investigated abnormal unit prices, VMG-De Cock receives not the 10% statutory lump sum (it was not the lowest regular bid) but 55,716.56 euros: 50% chance of being awarded × 10% profit margin × 1.1 million.
A contracting authority can require its bidders to work with a supplier who never submitted a bid — provided that supplier falls under a statutory exclusion ground
The Belgian Council of State rejects the action of three competing bailiffs against a TMVW tender that imposes cooperation with 'central bailiff Philip Scheir bvba' (appointed without competition) for the legal leg of external debt management — statutory bailiff tasks fall outside procurement law via art. 28 §1 4° e) of the 2016 Act, and without a cross-border element European transparency obligations also do not apply.
12 Nuctech customs scanners have been running for years — but for the 5 new ones, Chinese ownership was suddenly a security risk, and the Council sided with customs
The Council refuses the suspension of the award to Rapiscan Systems for mobile X-ray scanners for the Belgian customs (port of Antwerp and the entire Belgian territory) — Nuctech Warsaw, Polish-law subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned Nuctech group, was not even invited under article 33 §2 of the Procurement Act 2016 ('essential security interests of the realm'), supported by a confidential profile analysis from the State Security Service on the Chinese national intelligence law of 2017 and ties to Tsinghua University.
Authority withdraws award after extreme-urgency suspension — yet still loses and pays €1,216 in costs to the challenging bidder
Infrabel had on 23 August 2022 awarded a contract to TOTAL ENERGIES and declared Modalizy's bid irregular; the Council suspended under extreme urgency on 7 October (judgment 254.700), Infrabel withdrew the contested decision on 18 October and the case became moot — but the Council still ordered Infrabel to pay full procedural costs (€770 + filing fees + contribution) because a withdrawal is 'a form of substitute for an annulment in litigation'.
Winning a suspension is only half the job: fail to file an annulment action within three months and your suspension vanishes
After Telecom Integrated Technologies NV obtained the suspension of the award to Hanssens Telecom for the Aalter telephony contract in July 2022, it never filed the required annulment action; on 5 May 2023 the Council automatically lifts the suspension — even though the municipality had already withdrawn the decision itself.
Challenging non-selection pays off: Lebbeke withdraws its award and pays 924 euros in costs, even though Verhoeve Marc gets no contract
A week before the Council of State hearing the Municipality of Lebbeke withdraws its award for the Waaitjesstraat slow-road redevelopment; the Council formally dismisses BV Verhoeve Marc's extreme-urgency action for loss of object but orders the municipality to pay 924 euros in costs, including the requested procedural indemnity of 700 euros.
Action dismissed, but the university pays the bill: the economic reality of a last-minute withdrawal
The University of Antwerp withdraws its award decision for a SOAR cybersecurity platform the day before the extreme urgency hearing and halts the entire procurement procedure; the Council of State formally dismisses TrueGen's action for loss of subject matter but orders the contracting authority to bear all costs, including a procedural indemnity of 770 euros.
A two-sentence 'urgency' section in your urgency proceedings costs you €770 — and the €680,000 award won't even be examined
The Council of State rejects a bailiff's suspension request without ever examining the award — the two paragraphs on 'urgency' in his application fall short of the proof obligation in article 17 §1 of the coordinated laws.
Your offer was irregular, you lost the contract — and you still get €10,261 in damages
The Council of State orders the municipality of Heers to pay €10,261.43 in damages to Idemasport despite the fact that its own offer was irregular, because the winning offer also turned out to be irregular and in a new award procedure Idemasport would have had a real chance — assessed in fairness at 50%.
Concession or public contract? The difference comes down to one question: who loses money if the market collapses?
The Council of State rejects Clear Channel's extreme-urgency suspension against the award to JCDecaux of the Antwerp concession for 150 city advertising signs (8 years, 85% price / 15% sustainability) because the operational risk lies entirely with the concessionaire — who must invest in the infrastructure, pay an annual retributie even for signs without advertisers, and bear what the Court of Justice calls 'the whims of the market'.
Pointing wrongly to 'an appeal to the Council of State' in your rejection letter cannot create that Council's jurisdiction — and costs you your procedure indemnity
The Council of State declares itself incompetent to hear Philippe Lesur's extreme-urgency challenge to the award of a scrap contract to BST, because Bruxelles-Energie — a cooperative in which Agence Bruxelles-Propreté holds only 40% of compartment A — is not an 'administrative authority', and immediately penalises Bruxelles-Energie for wrongly referring to the Council in its rejection letter by stripping it of its procedure indemnity.
A 'required option' rules your bid out, an 'allowed option' does not — and what the tender does not impose as a minimum, bidders are free to limit
The Council of State dismisses Siemens Mobility's extreme-urgency challenge to the award of the Hermelijn tram midlife revision to CAF (76.75 vs 70.94 out of 100): CAF was free to limit its corrosion treatment to 20 m² of light rust per tram and 3 cracks because the tender set no minimum surface area, free to overlap its study and prototype phases because the tender only required a 40-day gap between document submission and prototype start, and free to offer an incomplete anti-collision system because that was an 'allowed' (not 'required') option — and Article 56 § 2 of the Royal Decree on special sectors 2017 only sanctions the option itself in that case, not the base bid.
You lost on 10 lots, won 1 lot via withdrawal — and still get the full procedural indemnity for that one lot
The Council of State awards Johnson & Johnson the full €770 procedural indemnity for lot 29 after ISPCC withdrew that lot — even though J&J had lost in an earlier judgment on the other 10 lots of the same procurement.
If the contracting authority withdraws after your appeal, you still get the procedural indemnity
The Council of State doesn't rule on the award of a body-cam framework contract to Proximus because the State withdrew its decision — but it orders the State to pay €700 procedural indemnity to Securitas, because withdrawal counts as 'equivalent' to annulment.
Losing the suspension AND forgetting to pursue the annulment: Newin pays 992 euros to the Province of Luxembourg for work not done
SA Newin loses its suspension against the award of the 2021-2025 ICT connectivity framework to Orange Belgium, forgets to file a 'request to pursue' within 30 days, and sees its annulment action automatically converted into a presumed discontinuance with 992 euros in costs.
Withdrawal four days before the hearing — and still a 994 euro bill: the price of a quick course change in extreme urgency
Days before the hearing, SA Entreprises Herphelin withdraws both its extreme-urgency and annulment action against SOFICO over the E429 motorway maintenance contract, but still bears 994 euros in procedural costs.
220 euros in filing fees not paid = claim struck + 700 euros to the municipality: the most expensive week in a cat-services provider's life
SRL Jonckers-Thoumsin challenged the Chièvres cat sterilisation contract award in May 2018 but never paid the 220 euro filing fee; in January 2023 the Council declares the annulment action 'non-accomplished' and orders it to pay 700 euros in procedural indemnity to the municipality.
A hospital non-profit awarding a supply contract: which court do you turn to when you want to challenge the award?
The Council of State declares the action without object after Clinique Saint Luc Bouge withdrew its award decision — but in passing makes clear that the non-profit is likely not an 'administrative authority' and that the action should probably have been lodged with the civil court.
After bpost files an extreme-urgency action, the Ministry of Finance quietly withdraws its award decision — and pays the costs
bpost had been downgraded from first to second place in a framework agreement for federal printing services following a recalculation; it filed an extreme-urgency action with the Council of State on 17 May 2022, and on 2 June the Minister of Finance withdrew the contested ranking decision — with costs awarded against the State.
Winning extreme-urgency suspension is not enough — without a follow-up annulment request the suspension is automatically lifted, even if the contested award has been withdrawn
The Council of State lifts the previously ordered suspension of VDAB's award to 3S because Alfa-Zet, having obtained the suspension, never filed an annulment action — a mandatory lifting under Article 17, §4 — although VDAB still bears the costs because it had withdrawn the contested decision itself.
A withdrawn decision makes your action moot — but the contracting authority still pays 1,840 euro in costs
The Council of State declares Haezebrouck's annulment action against its non-selection for three lots of mowing and clearing works to be without object because Westkustpolder withdrew the contested decision in the meantime — but the polder bears the full procedural costs for both the successful suspension and the annulment action, totalling 1,840 euro.
The province withdrew its water-cooler award on 4 February, Aqualex filed annulment on 5 February anyway — and recovered 1,140 euro in costs
The Council of State declares Aqualex's annulment action against the award to Waterlogic of lot 1 (water coolers on tap water) of a Province of Flemish Brabant framework agreement to be without object because the provincial executive withdrew its decision on 4 February 2021 — one day before the annulment action was filed — but the province nonetheless bears all 1,140 euro in procedural costs.
A concession with no written criteria can still be annulled four years later — even when the defendant doesn't bother to fight back
The Council of State annuls, via the abbreviated procedure, two decisions of the City of Dinant distributing quays and boat moorings on the Meuse between tourist boat operators, because no selection criterion or reason was ever formulated — and the City didn't even ask the procedure to continue.
May the contracting authority allow a flawed subcontractor to be replaced — or must it? The Belgian Council of State refers the question to the CJEU
The Council of State reopens the debate in the annulment action against the award of a Ghent restoration contract and refers two preliminary questions to the Court of Justice on whether a contracting authority is obliged, or merely allowed, to require a tenderer to replace a subcontractor that does not meet the selection criteria.
Withdrawing your award decision after being sued costs you €920 — even if the applicant never wins on the merits
The Council of State holds that IPSOS's urgent suspension request against an NMBS award is moot because NMBS withdrew its award decision before the hearing — but NMBS still bears the full costs of the applicant.
A 'selection' by a selection committee is not automatically a challengeable decision — wait for validation by the competent body
The Council of State declares the application of Step Group and Mimob against the selection of a competing project on the Prés de Tilff site inadmissible: a 'décision de sélection' of a parity selection committee is here only a preparatory act, and the final decision of the competent bodies did not yet exist when the petition was filed.
A 'final' email from a Category Buyer can amount to a challengeable exclusion decision — even when the author was not authorised to take it
The Council of State suspends the exclusion of AGC Glass from the SNCB tender for M6 train window frames because the email by which a Category Buyer 'definitively' rejected the bid does constitute a challengeable administrative decision — but was taken by someone who, as SNCB itself admits, lacked the authority, leading the Council to suspend on an ex officio ground.
In a joint procurement the costs follow the actual contracting authorities — not those who only provided 'technical assistance'
The Council of State holds that BEDIMO's urgent suspension request against the award of office furniture for PEREX 4.0 is moot after withdrawal of the contested decision, dismisses the Walloon Region from the case (it provided only technical assistance), and orders the two real contracting authorities — SOFICO and the Belgian State — to share the €920 procedural costs equally.
Thirteen days between petition and withdrawal — a textbook example that filing an urgent suspension request is sometimes enough
The Council of State holds that LUX GREEN's suit against its non-selection for the redevelopment of rue des Remparts in Virton is moot — the City of Virton withdrew its non-selection decision thirteen days after the petition was filed and now bears the full €920 procedural costs.
Selling a €1.17 million plot to a competitor — the lost profit you claim cannot float between €594,000 and €950,400, or there is no 'urgency'
The Council of State refuses to suspend the municipal sale of a 14,443 m² plot to Immo-3B because Caselia Development fails to substantiate its economic loss concretely — a profit range of €594,000 to €950,400 is no proof of urgency.
Withdrawing your extreme-urgency two days before the hearing still costs €920 — Dumay-Mior learns the lesson in the Toit & Moi fire-detection file
Dumay-Mior voluntarily withdrew its extreme-urgency request against the irregularity finding for its fire-detection maintenance offer to social housing operator Toit & Moi before the hearing — and was still ordered to pay the enrolment fee, the contribution and the full €700 procedural indemnity.
The Flemish Community asked for €2,800 in procedural costs after a forfeiture of action — the Council reduced it to the standard €700
Henk De Four missed the thirty-day deadline to request continuation of his annulment proceedings against being declared irregular in the Flemish Disaster Fund tender; the Flemish Community got its forfeiture, but only the basic procedural indemnity.
Lost the extreme-urgency on 26 July, did nothing in August — Heyrman-De Roeck loses its appeal against three lots of waterway maintenance and pays €1,070 in costs
Heyrman-De Roeck filed a combined appeal against three lots of unnavigable-waterway maintenance, lost the extreme-urgency request on 26 July 2019 and let the deadline for requesting continuation lapse — the Council establishes the forfeiture and orders her to pay both the principal and the intervener's costs.
A 'public lease' is not a public contract: the Vandeputte brothers run into the law's scope
The Council of State dismisses the request for suspension under extreme urgency against a public agricultural lease by the Ieper PCSW (OCMW) because the Public Procurement Act does not apply — the lenient 'urgency presumption' of the Legal Protection Act 2013 is reserved for procurement and concessions above the European threshold.
If you withdraw your decision after a suspension is granted, you pay the legal costs for both procedures
Defence awarded a framework agreement for printers and multifunctionals to Konica Minolta and Ricoh, Canon obtained an extreme-urgency suspension, and the minister then withdrew the award decision — making the appeal moot but also picking up the entire bill for both procedures.
Winning the suspension does not protect your award — De Vlaamse Waterweg withdraws anyway, and pays the costs
De Vlaamse Waterweg won the interim proceedings against Envisan/Jan De Nul over dredging works on the Beneden-Durme, but withdrew the award decision itself seventeen days later — making the annulment moot and shifting the costs onto the contracting authority.
Waiting for an 'implicit modification decision' until you read in the press that the winner brings a new partner — that's 60 days too late
Inter Real Estate Trusty waited two and a half months after being notified that its bid for the sale of the Muntcentrum had been rejected, then read in the newspaper that the winning consortium WCCS had brought Immobel on board, and tried to file an extreme-urgency challenge against an 'implicit modification decision' — the Council dismisses both the original decisions as out of time and the implicit modification as non-existent.
A withdrawal after filing works in your favour — but only if you actually claim costs at the hearing
Ghent University Hospital awarded a framework agreement for endoscopes to Olympus, Onis filed an extreme-urgency suspension, the hospital quickly withdrew the award itself — and because Onis told the court at the hearing that it was not claiming costs, the de facto winner ended up paying its own EUR 220 bill.
When a court president strikes you off the list of sworn translators, he effectively excludes you from public contracts — but the Council of State itself is not sure it has jurisdiction
On 25 July 2014 the President of the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance strikes translator Benhachem off the informal list of sworn translators; after a first suspension judgment, a cassation and a referral, the Council of State now refers three preliminary questions to the Constitutional Court — is a striking-off from such a list a 'public-procurement act' or not?
Not showing up at your own UDN hearing costs you the suspension — but you keep the €700 indemnity
Gilles Moury attacks the award of a military construction project to Wust, Defense withdraws the award two weeks later, but Moury fails to appear at the hearing a year later, which procedurally rejects the suspension — yet she still receives €700 indemnity because the withdrawal had already made the Belgian State the losing party.
A 'facilitating' agreement with Rotterdam turns out to be a disguised public procurement — no invoice ≠ no procurement
The Port of Antwerp directly concludes a 'storage agreement' with the Port of Rotterdam without any tender, convinced that it merely 'facilitates' for its dredging contractors, but the Council of State holds after almost six years of litigation that the agreement — combined with the related EVOA contract and a €1.2 million guarantee — is in fact a public service contract and annuls the approval.
You win because the contracting authority withdraws — but asking for €5,600 gets you €700
Bruxelles-Environnement withdraws its award decision after the Council had already ordered suspension, so CERAA wins the annulment proceedings — but its claim for €5,600 in procedural indemnity (max amount, doubled for suspension + annulment) is reduced to the base amount of €700.
One judgment for suspension and annulment when the contracting authority withdraws mid-stream — no continuation tax
Cofely Services attacks an irregularity finding and an award by the Federal Police via extreme-urgency suspension; when the police withdraw the decision during the proceedings, the Council handles suspension and annulment in a single judgment without Cofely needing to file a continuation request or pay the related tax.
Ask the base amount, get the base amount — a €700 case wrapped up in twelve weeks
Intermédiance & Partners files an extreme-urgency suspension against Momignies' award of a bailiff services contract to an individual; the municipality withdraws within two weeks, and the Council grants exactly the €700 indemnity the applicant requested without discussion.
A university-college non-profit applying public procurement law does not thereby become an 'administrative authority' — the Council of State has no jurisdiction
ITZU Cleaning went to the Council of State because its rejection letter said so, but UC Leuven and UC Limburg are private non-profits without unilateral binding decision-making power towards third parties — the Council has no jurisdiction, although UCLL is ordered to pay the costs because it misled the applicant.
After a suspension, the contracting authority often simply withdraws the award — and the annulment claim becomes moot, but you still get your procedural costs
The municipality of Ans had awarded its external prevention service contract to PROVIKMO; after SPMT-ARISTA obtained a suspension, the municipality withdrew its award decision and the annulment claim became moot — but SPMT-ARISTA is treated as a 'successful party' and is awarded €700 in procedural costs plus €400 in other costs.
Withdrawing your award decision to dodge a suspension judgment still costs you €1,500 — to the Council you remain the losing party
The Council of State holds that the action has lost its purpose because Etterbeek itself withdrew the contested non-selection decision, but still orders the municipality to pay €700 procedural cost award plus €800 court costs — because withdrawal is treated as a substitute for annulment — and refunds €800 to the bidder who had paid the registry fees twice.
Suspension granted, then the contracting authority withdraws — the suspension must be lifted, but the authority still pays €900
The Council of State lifts its earlier suspension of the award to Lambert Frères/Deumer/Mathieu because Bastogne itself withdrew the contested decision and no annulment action followed, but still orders the city to pay €700 procedural cost award plus €200 court costs — withdrawal remains a 'substitute for an annulment in litigation'.
Withdraw your contested award and immediately re-award to the same firm — legally allowed, but you pay the costs of the first action and trigger a second one
The Council of State holds that Illico's action has lost its purpose because the Haute Ecole Robert Schuman itself withdrew its contested award to Vending Euro Products on 18 June 2018 — even though the same instrument also re-awarded the contract to that same firm — and orders the school to pay €700 procedural cost award plus €220 court costs; meanwhile the re-award itself was also challenged and suspended.
Withdrawing your case isn't always losing — when the contracting authority signs a settlement with 'procedural costs on its account', that can mean the full €1,390
The International Polar Foundation withdrew its annulment action against a Council of Ministers procurement decision after settling, and the Council of State imposes the €840 procedural-cost award plus €550 court costs on the Belgian State — not on the withdrawing applicant.
An extreme-urgency appeal can sink an award before the Council even examines it
The Belgian State withdrew three catering awards to Compass Group six days before the hearing, leaving UMAMI Catering's emergency appeal 'without object' — but the State still had to pay the costs.
Withdraw your award decision after a successful suspension? You still pay the costs
The Council of State dismisses the annulment appeal against the award of a EUR 21.7M quay wall in Zeebrugge because the contracting authority had already withdrawn its award decision — but charges all procedural costs and lawyer's compensation to the Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven.
Withdrawing a framework-agreement award after a suspension: appeal moot, but EUR 1,140 in costs to the city
The Council of State declares Roto Smeets Belgium's annulment appeal against the framework-agreement award for printing the City of Antwerp's magazine to Roularta moot — the city had already withdrawn its decision after an earlier extreme-urgency suspension and now bears all procedural costs.
File an extreme-urgency suspension and don't show up: request rejected, three pages later
The president of the VIth chamber rejects Eureca Mobile's extreme-urgency suspension request because neither the requester nor its lawyer attended the hearing — automatic default under article 11 of the Royal Decree of 2 April 1991.
Suspension won, award withdrawn, appeal dismissed — and still EUR 1,240 in costs for the city
The City of Brussels lost the suspension procedure against Buggenhouts Tegelhuis in March 2017, filed no continuation request after the auditor proposed annulment, and then withdrew its own award decision — result: the appeal is dismissed as 'without object' but the city pays EUR 1,240 in costs.
Four out of five JV members is not enough — one absentee makes the appeal inadmissible
The Council of State declares an extreme-urgency appeal by four architecture firms against the award of the Brussels Music Conservatory project (13 July 2018) inadmissible because the fifth member of their joint venture — SWECO Belgium — did not join the action, and the 'subcontracting cooperation protocol' did not sufficiently prove that SWECO had actually withdrawn from the joint venture.
Withdrawing an award decision to dodge an extreme-urgency procedure — and still paying the costs
When a contracting authority withdraws its contested award decision during a suspension procedure and that withdrawal becomes final, the Council of State holds that the application has lost its purpose, but still orders the authority to pay 1,700 EUR in procedural costs because the withdrawal acts as a 'substitute for an annulment'.
First suspended, thirteen months of silence, then withdrawn anyway: the Port of Antwerp pays 2,200 EUR for two years of litigation
The Council of State had already suspended on 22 November 2016 the award of dredging works in the 4th Port Dock to Martens en Van Oord; the Port of Antwerp waited until 18 December 2017 to withdraw the decision itself — and now bears 2,200 EUR in costs for both the extreme-urgency and the annulment procedure.
Withdrawing your annulment action five months after the hearing date: 900 EUR for the contracting authority
Dileoz brought the City of Vilvoorde before the Council of State on 15 September 2017 over a 36,980 EUR recruitment software contract awarded to A&S Solutions; after all briefs were exchanged and the audit report drafted, Dileoz withdrew on 6 February 2018 — and must pay 900 EUR in procedural costs to the City.
Withdrawing the award one day before the hearing: case dismissed, but the hospital pays 920 EUR in costs
AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende withdraws on 18 April 2018 — the day before the extreme-urgency hearing — its award to Gerechtsdeurwaarders BTO for the amicable collection of patient invoices; the Council of State holds the application has lost its purpose but orders the hospital to pay 920 EUR in costs and the intervening bailiffs to pay 150 EUR in court fees.
A police HQ from 8 to 12 million euros: the Council of State refuses to rule on amendments when the 'in house' arrangement was never put on paper
Four members of the Boraine police council challenge a 550,000 EUR amendment and a 11.8 million EUR final account for a police HQ in Colfontaine originally awarded for 8 million; the Council of State declares itself incompetent because the 'in house' delegation to IDEA was contractual — even though the contract was only signed 18 months AFTER provisional acceptance.
Two suspension actions against the same award decision on the same hearing day — what does the Council do with the second?
When Misanet and Köse Cleaning each demand a suspension on the same hearing day against the same Brussels award decision, the Council suspends the award once (in judgment 241,061) and adjourns the second case sine die, so that Köse remains protected if the suspension in 241,061 is later lifted.
The contracting authority withdraws its award decision and still pays — a withdrawn act is a 'substitute for annulment'
The Council finds that Arcadis Belgium's appeal against the award of the Arlon mobility plan to TRANSITEC has lost its object because the Walloon Region withdrew its award decision on 4 May 2017, but nevertheless orders the Region to pay €700 procedural indemnity and €200 in other costs because the withdrawal constitutes 'a form of substitute for annulment'.
Intervene to defend an award that's later withdrawn? Then you share in the costs — €150 on your name
The Council finds that INSTANCES' annulment appeal against the award of lots 'public procurement law' (€16,528.93 excl. VAT) and 'public/administrative law on urban planning' (€33,057.85 excl. VAT) to lawyer Marie Bourgys by the city of Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve lost its purpose after withdrawal, awards INSTANCES the €700 base procedural indemnity — and orders €200 in other costs against the city plus €150 against intervening lawyer Bourgys.
Want to plead 'we're a poor authority' to cut your costs order? Not without proof — and certainly not if you yourself consulted lawyers before withdrawing
The Council finds that INTERMÉDIANCE & PARTNERS' extreme-urgency appeal against two CENTR'HABITAT decisions (urgent extension of the previous bailiff contract and launch of a new specifications procedure) lost its purpose after withdrawal, but rejects CENTR'HABITAT's lengthy plea to cut the €700 base procedural indemnity to the €140 minimum — and awards the full €700 (€350 per applicant) plus €400 in other costs.
Four days after the extreme-urgency request, STIB withdraws its award decision — but still pays €900 to BELGORAIL
The Council finds that BELGORAIL's extreme-urgency request against STIB's 25 April 2017 decision not to retain its bid for monitoring the construction of MR-M7 metro trains lost its purpose after withdrawal, and orders €700 procedural indemnity plus €200 other costs against STIB.
The dictum kept the documents confidential, but the body of the ruling 'forgot' to say why — six weeks later the Council adds the missing sentence
Six weeks after dismissing in extreme urgency Clear Channel Belgium's challenge against the Commune of Uccle's award of bus shelters to JC Decaux, the Council of State corrects an omission-style material error in ruling 239.056: the conclusion justifying the provisional confidentiality of the two bids and the correspondence with the bidders was missing from the 'Confidentiality' section, while the dictum (Article 4) already drew the consequences from it.
When your own specifications say 'data collection is not an end in itself', your €2.5 million works contract turns into a services contract
The Council of State upholds the Walloon Region's tutelage decision annulling the City of Namur's award of a €2.57 million Intelligent Transport System — the 'works contract' classification fails even though works represent 83% of the budget, because the specifications themselves describe data collection as a mere means serving a mobility-management end.
UDN dismissal with €900 in costs — five days later the Council rectifies its own ruling: costs reserved because the annulment procedure is still pending
Five days after the UDN dismissal of Constructiewerkhuizen De Meyer's application against Waterwegen en Zeekanaal, the Council corrects a material error in original ruling 239.468: the definitive order to pay €200 court fee and €700 procedural indemnity is removed because the 'further course of the procedure' (the parallel annulment) requires the costs decision to remain open.
Leaving an unsigned offer on e-procurement isn't a double submission — it's an abandoned half-finished project
Aswebo had uploaded documents to e-Tendering without ever signing the submission report, then joined THV Stadsbader-Aswebo for a 7-million-euro road works tender — Roads and Traffic excluded both offers as 'double bids', but the Council of State suspended that decision: art. 54 §2 requires a purpose-related test, not textual punishment.
Skip your own extreme-urgency hearing? Your suspension is dismissed automatically — even if the contracting authority already withdrew its decision
KITRY challenged the award of an EMPREVA IT contract to EONIX, but failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing of 7 September 2017 — result: suspension dismissed, even though the contested decision had already been withdrawn two months earlier.
The contracting authority withdraws its award during your suspension procedure — and you get a 700 euro procedural indemnity for free
DUO Catering challenged the award of a school catering contract to TCO Service; before the hearing, the OCMW of Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve withdrew the decision — result: case moot, but full procedural indemnity and costs charged to the OCMW.
A contracting authority that changes its mind only has to motivate the NEW position — not defend the old one
The Brussels-Capital Region invited Orange into a negotiated procedure without prior publication on the ground of exclusivity, received its BAFO, and then decided to abort the procedure because 'other operators can also handle this' — the Council of State upheld that about-face: a changed position only requires reasoning of the NOW, not an explanation of the THEN.
You win in extreme urgency, the authority withdraws its decision, and you think you're done? Watch out: without an annulment application, the suspension lapses automatically
The Council of State lifts a previously ordered suspension of an award by the City of Genk because Trendhuis filed no annulment application after its extreme-urgency win — but Genk still has to pay the court fee and €700 in costs because it had withdrawn its decision itself.
Lose extreme urgency at the federal Finance Ministry? Withdraw your award and pay €900 — no annulment proceedings, no stain on the file
The Council of State lifts the suspension of the award to Cemre for the cleaning of the WTC III building (Federal Public Service Finance) because MisaNet filed no annulment application after its extreme-urgency win — outcome: €200 court fee + €700 lawyers' costs to be paid by the Belgian State, and a procedure withdrawn by Finance itself before any further blow.
Filed your annulment four days too soon — and you pay €200 in court fees for proceedings that lapse for lack of subject matter
Shanks Belgium won extreme urgency on 24 January 2017 against IMOG's award to DEME for the processing of waste-incinerator residues, filed an annulment application on 17 February 2017, and saw IMOG withdraw the contested decision four days later on 21 February 2017 — outcome: the Council declares the proceedings without object and orders double court fees (€400) plus €700 lawyers' costs against IMOG.
An increased lawyers' costs award (€2,800) is not granted by claiming the authority 'knew it was wrong' — you must adduce concrete circumstances
The Council of State lifts the suspension of an award by the Province of Flemish Brabant to BVBA Geerts for waterway maintenance works, and grants only the basic €700 in lawyers' costs — not the requested €2,800 — because Audenaert adduced no concrete circumstances justifying the fourfold uplift.
Withdrawing an award decision after an extreme-urgency action costs you €700 procedural indemnity plus the docket fee — even though no one wins on the merits
The Council of State finds that Coca-Cola European Partners Belgium's extreme-urgency action against the award of a vending-machine concession to Pelican Rouge is devoid of purpose because the federal Finance Ministry has withdrawn its award decision in the meantime — and orders the Ministry to pay the docket fee and €700 procedural indemnity, since Coca-Cola counts as the 'successful party'.
Withdraw your award decision just before the urgency hearing? You'll bear the costs — even though the Council formally rejects the application
OVAM withdraws its award decision seven days before the urgency hearing: the Council formally rejects the application as without object, but orders OVAM to pay the court fee and €700 procedural indemnity because the Jan De Nul–Envisan joint venture is regarded as the prevailing party.
Withdrawal before judgment in an ordinary suspension action — no cost recovery as in extreme-urgency cases with withdrawal
The Council of State records that BVBA ASBO withdraws its ordinary suspension action against the award of a green-maintenance contract to De Vlieger for €972,300.01 excl. VAT, without ruling on costs or procedural indemnity.
Not every public contract goes to the Council of State — a free Catholic school is not an administrative authority for its public procurement
The Council of State declares itself incompetent to hear an extreme-urgency action by two architectural firms against the award of an architecture contract by a free Catholic school (asbl Collège Sainte-Marie), because an award decision by such a private asbl creates no obligations toward third parties and the school is therefore not an administrative authority within the meaning of article 14 — challenging such an award requires going to the civil courts.
The Council of Ministers has no 'hierarchical power' to substitute itself for an autonomous decision-making body — not even for an emergency mission to Antarctica
The Council of State suspends the Council of Ministers' decision to have the 2016/2017 maintenance mission to the Antarctic Princess Elisabeth Station carried out by Defense together with Science Policy, because under article 4 of the Royal Decree of 20 May 2009 that task falls within the exclusive competence of the Strategic Council of the Polar Secretariat — and the minister has no 'hierarchical power' to bypass that body.
Suspension automatically lifted because no annulment was filed — and yet the applicant still gets the procedural indemnity
The Council of State lifts the previously ordered suspension because no annulment action followed, but still orders the Belgian State to pay 700 euro procedural indemnity and 200 euro costs because, by a corrective decision of 22 July 2016, the State implicitly admitted that the original tender conditions had been set by an authority that was not competent.
Withdrawing your urgent suspension at the last minute? You still pay the court fee and the other side's procedural costs
IGEMO filed an extreme-urgency suspension against an award decision by the Flemish Region, withdrew four days before the hearing, and was ordered to pay 200 euros in court fees plus 700 euros in procedural indemnity to the defendant.
An uninvited bidder who still submits an offer can win — below the EU threshold a spontaneous bid is fair game
The Council of State refuses to suspend the award of the gym-floor renovation in De Alk because the Municipality of Alken, after severe flooding, could legitimately use the urgent procedure via the college of mayor and aldermen, and because a spontaneous bid from a non-invited company in a negotiated procedure without publication below the EU threshold may be considered.
No reply to the auditor's report within 30 days? Appeal lost — and 900 euros of costs
When the Council of State serves an auditor's report recommending rejection, the applicant has thirty days to request continuation of the procedure — silence creates a legal presumption of withdrawal, and the applicant pays the costs.
Suspension denied? The 30-day clock starts ticking — silence costs you 900 euros
Eurotech Benelux loses not only the contract but also pays 900 euros in costs because, after its suspension request was denied, it failed to file a request to continue the proceedings within the legal 30-day deadline.
The other side's last memorandum is not an extension — your 30-day clock runs separately
Groentotaal loses its annulment action against the non-award of the Kasterlee green-maintenance contract because, even though the municipality filed a final memorandum, it failed to file a continuation request within 30 days of the auditor's report — total cost: 900 euros plus any chance at the contract.
Auditor's report proposes dismissal — silence costs you the intervening party's fees too
Joëlle Salens loses her action against the award of the towing contract to BVBA Antak because, after the auditor's report proposed dismissal, she failed to file a continuation request within 30 days — leading to a costs order in favour of both the contracting authority and the intervening successful bidder.
Two companies in joint venture wanting to intervene? Pay 150 euros twice — otherwise no intervention
MONUMENT HAINAUT and MONUMENT VANDEKERCKOVE jointly try to intervene against the suspension of their award by the City of Charleroi, pay only one 150 euro fee for the two requesters — and see their intervention declared inadmissible.
A denied suspension is not the end — fail to continue within 30 days and you owe 700 euros to the other side
BLUE PLANET PROMOTIONS loses its annulment action against the rejection of its offer for police promotional items — not on the merits but because, after losing the suspension, it failed to file a request to continue the proceedings, and is hit with 900 euros in costs on top.
Suspension granted, decision withdrawn: the annulment action loses its object — and the 20% bonus on procedural costs is gone
When the contracting authority withdraws its award decision after the Council of State has already suspended it, the subsequent annulment action loses its object — the applicant still receives the basic procedural indemnity of 700 euros, but not the 20% surcharge that the Procedural Regulation grants to a 'normal' winner.
If you want a suspension, first prove that there is something to suspend
The Council of State dismisses the extreme-urgency suspension request brought by eleven judicial officers against the alleged award of penal-fines collection to the Gerhanko firm, because they fail to show that the contested award decisions even exist — an email invitation to a software demo and a self-drafted account of a phone call are not enough.
Withdrawing after a UDN suspension: you don't just lose the contract, you also pay EUR 900 to the bidder
After the Council suspended the award to FLUX of Ostend's Christmas lighting contract (judgment 232.491), the city withdrew the award decision — whereupon the Council declared the subsequent annulment action without object and ordered the city to pay EUR 200 in court fees plus EUR 700 in basic procedural indemnity to the applicant, without the increase that normally applies for the combination suspension + annulment.
You won your urgency suspension, but forgot the annulment action — then the Council lifts your suspension automatically
Two months after the Council suspended in extreme urgency the award to SCA Hygiene Products of the three-year framework agreement for incontinence material at the public welfare centre of Kampenhout (judgment 233.088), it lifts that suspension automatically because ONTEX failed to file an annulment action within the legal deadline — a purely procedural automatism that did no harm in this file because the welfare centre had already withdrawn the award decision in the meantime.
A 'concession' without real operating risk is just a public service contract — but if you don't claim extreme urgency, you can't suspend it
Charleroi's public welfare body launched a 'service concession' for managing its food procurement, but the Council of State requalifies it as a public service contract — even though the suspension is still rejected because the application did not mention 'extreme urgency'.
€140,000 over budget and the only bidder: the social welfare centre was allowed to abort and re-tender
The sole bidder for a four-year catering contract came in €140,000 above the estimate — the OCMW Geraardsbergen overrode the favourable recommendation of its own procurement office, stopped the procedure, and the Council of State accepted that decision.
Claim your procedural compensation no later than 5 days before the hearing — otherwise the request is late, even if you win the case
The Walloon Region withdrew the contested award decision before the annulment ruling; the Council declared the action moot, but refused the €2,800 procedural compensation because the applicant only requested it at the hearing.
A minister signs off on the negotiated procedure, but the full government should have decided — four years later, the award is annulled ex officio
The Council of State annuls ex officio the award to Marsh of the third-party liability insurance for Walloon airports, because the Minister for Airport Policy alone approved the choice of the negotiated procedure while the estimate for this joint procurement exceeded the 290,000 euro threshold for which the full Walloon Government was competent.
Challenging a non-profit's award before the Council of State? Wrong court — time wasted
The Council of State declares itself incompetent to hear an emergency suspension against the award of lot 7 (sanitary cells) of a Ciney nursing home: the contracting non-profit is not an 'administrative authority' under article 14, §1 of the coordinated laws, and the competent court is the civil court.
Won a suspension earlier? Make absolutely sure to file the annulment in time — otherwise your win evaporates
The Council of State lifts the earlier suspension (judgment 229,104) of a CPAS Brussels medicines procurement because the applicants never filed an annulment request — and refuses the requested procedural indemnity because the amount was never specified.
If you withdraw your award after a UDN is filed, you still pay the costs — even if the case becomes 'moot'
The City of Antwerp withdrew its award to Ferro-Seaport after Wolters-Mabeg filed for extreme urgency — the Council dismisses the application as moot, but still orders the city to pay €700 procedural indemnity and €200 court fee to the applicant.
Track public tenders?
Receive daily relevant tenders tailored to your business. Including AI summaries, competitive analysis and market intelligence.
This page shows all rulings of the Council of State (Belgium's supreme administrative court) on other in public procurement. Each ruling is summarized by TenderWolf in plain language, with a legal lesson and a practical question to ask yourself. View all rulings →