Two of four partners cannot drag the temporary association to the Council of State alone
The Council of State dismisses the emergency suspension request against the award of the Halle al Chair (Namur) restoration design because only two of the four original members of the temporary association 'Sébastien Mouffe Subway - Carole Brunin' had filed the appeal.
What happened?
The City of Namur tendered a design contract for the interior restoration of the Halle al Chair — a historic building. Four candidates bid, including the temporary association (TV) 'Sébastien Mouffe Subway - Carole Brunin' and the TV A&U Francis Haulot/Roeder Casier/Atelier Prospective & Patrimoine/Greisch Ingénierie. The latter scored 75.79 points, Mouffe-Brunin only 44.36 — fourth and last. On 30 December 2014 the city awarded the contract to Haulot at 12.5% of the works value, pending two clarifications (Haulot's involvement in preliminary studies; late transmission of plans). On 3 April 2015 the city confirmed the award. On 27 May 2015 Mouffe-Brunin filed an emergency suspension. That's where the problem appeared. The offer had originally been filed by FOUR persons: two natural persons (Sébastien Mouffe and Géraldine Debry) and two companies (SPRL Nicolas Janssens Ingénieur Architecte and SPRL Carole Brunin Architecte). The TV agreement contained no clause empowering one member to act for all in court. The emergency suspension, however, was filed by only SPRL Carole Brunin and Sébastien Mouffe — two of the four original bidders. The settled rule: all TV members must act jointly in court, unless the TV agreement contains a specific representation clause. Application inadmissible — no substantive review. A desperate attempt to add an improved petition by fax on 24 June 2015 (the day before the hearing) including all four parties fails — there's no proof it was sent in time by registered mail as required by article 84 of the Regent's Decree. The intervening winning TV requested €700 procedural indemnity, but the Council applied art. 30/1, §2, last paragraph of the Council of State Act: intervening parties do not get a procedural indemnity. Costs of €1,000 charged to the applicants, €500 each.
Why does this matter?
Temporary associations are popular for complex design and construction contracts where different disciplines collaborate (architect + engineer + restorer, e.g.). But many partners underestimate that a TV is not a legal entity — all members jointly are the bidder. If you go to the Council of State afterwards, you must rally all members. Even a single absent firm makes the entire appeal inadmissible. And did you know an intervening party (the winner defending its award) cannot get a procedural indemnity at the Council of State? Unlike at the ordinary court. That's a strategically important fact.
The lesson
If you bid in a temporary association, add an express representation-in-court clause to the TV agreement at signature ('Member X may act in court on behalf of the entire TV'). Otherwise you may not get all partners aligned for an eventual appeal. And if you're the winning TV: don't count on a procedural indemnity for intervening at the Council of State.
Ask yourself
Filing an emergency suspension tomorrow against an award your TV lost? Check: does every TV member sign — or do you have a clause in your TV agreement authorising you alone? If not: fix this before filing, not after.
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 →