A case ending without object still costs 700 euros — and when there are multiple applicants, there are clear rules for splitting the indemnity
On the same day and in the same context as arrest 236.111, ORES Assets and RESA also withdrew their award decision for lot 8 (Mons); the Council of State declares the action moot, but explains how the procedural indemnity is shared among four jointly-filing applicants.
What happened?
This is the sister case of arrest 236.111: same contracting authorities (ORES Assets and RESA), same public contract (legal recovery services), same award date (16 September 2015), same successful bidder (Olivia Decoene). This time it concerns lot 8 — ex-arrondissement Mons. The applicants — second-ranked bidders Senecaut, Salamon, Vallée and the company Sylvie Vallée — filed for annulment on 14 December 2015. ORES withdrew its decision on 2 March 2016; RESA on 11 March (corrected for material errors on 22 March). The withdrawals were notified to all bidders by registered post on 14 and 22 March 2016. No appeal was filed within the deadline, so the withdrawals became final. The Council declares the action moot. The interesting twist is the apportionment of the procedural indemnity. The four applicants requested 700 euros per defendant (1,400 euros total). The Council applied art. 30/1 § 2 al. 3 of the coordinated laws: when multiple applicants benefit from indemnity against multiple losing parties, the cap is twice the highest individual maximum. In public procurement matters that maximum is 2,800 euros, so theoretically the pot could go to 5,600 euros. But the Council notes that (a) it is one and the same dispute and (b) no applicant substantiates a basis for increase. So it stays at the base amount of 700 euros, split among the four applicants (175 each), borne by ORES and RESA at 350 each.
Why does this matter?
When several bidders file jointly, everyone tends to assume their individual indemnities just add up. This case draws the line: there must be one dispute, and without justification for an increase, the base amount is what gets split. In procurement disputes the base can be doubled compared to ordinary administrative cases (700 vs 140 minimum, 2,800 max), but the combination of multiple applicants and multiple defendants is not a free multiplier. For contracting authorities: in collective proceedings, financial exposure remains limited if the other side doesn't substantiate an increase.
The lesson
If you file with several bidders together, document individual complexity, costs or impact — otherwise you just get to share the base 700 euros. And for contracting authorities: don't budget automatically for doubled indemnities. One dispute = one base amount, unless the applicants substantively justify an increase.
Ask yourself
Are you joining with several bidders to challenge an award? Ask your lawyer: (1) is this one dispute or several distinct interests? (2) are there circumstances justifying an increased indemnity (complexity, high value, legal difficulty)? (3) how will the indemnity be split? Whoever fails to substantiate gets only a share of the base amount.
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 →