'We meet all the requirements' is not a legal ground — an extreme-urgency petition must cite specific articles
The Council of State rejects PanStreet's appeal due to inadmissible legal grounds: vague claims that 'specifications were not respected' without reference to specific provisions of the specifications or which deviations were wrongly accepted do not meet the formal requirements of an extreme-urgency petition.
What happened?
The City of Brussels launched a European tender for electric scanning vehicles for its parking enforcement unit, with the notice published on 28 June 2017. Three bidders submitted: PanStreet International (a German GmbH), Rauwers Controle and Sigmax Law Enforcement. On 25 October 2017 the city awarded the contract to Sigmax. PanStreet was informed on 30 November and 4 December. The company was convinced its Volkswagen e-Golf met all required specifications, and that Sigmax's Volkswagen e-Up deviated from several mandatory functionalities — and that the City had wrongly accepted these deviations. On 18 December 2017 PanStreet filed for suspension under extreme urgency — not via a classical petition prepared by a lawyer, but via a letter from the company itself. An extensive pleading with a lawyer was only filed the evening before the hearing on 11 January 2018. The Council excluded that pleading from the debate as it would disproportionately limit the right to contradiction. The original letter was assessed as the petition — and failed. Under article 16, §1, 5° of the Royal Decree of 5 December 1991, an extreme-urgency petition must contain a presentation of facts AND grounds. A 'ground' is the sufficiently clear description of (1) which legal rule is considered violated AND (2) how that rule is concretely violated. PanStreet's letter spoke of 'requirements' and 'deviating specifications' without ever referring to specific provisions of the specifications, without explaining which specifications its vehicle did meet and Sigmax's did not, and without identifying which 'deviating specifications' had wrongly been accepted. The petition was rejected, PanStreet ordered to pay 900 euros in costs.
Why does this matter?
This judgment is a hard reminder of one of the most underestimated formal requirements of an extreme-urgency appeal: without a clearly formulated legal ground, the procedure goes nowhere — no matter how compelling the factual complaints seem. For bidders challenging an award decision: vague language like 'does not meet the requirements' or 'deviating specifications were accepted' is insufficient. You must state which articles of the specifications or which legal provision were violated and how concretely.
The lesson
If you as a bidder want to challenge an award decision under extreme urgency, always engage a specialised lawyer and ensure your petition specifies for each ground (1) which legal rule or specification provision was violated, and (2) in what specific way the contracting authority is alleged to have violated that rule or provision. Never submit pleadings at the last moment: the risk of exclusion is real.
Ask yourself
Does your petition specify for each ground (1) a reference to a specific article of the 2016 Procurement Act, the Royal Decree on placement, or the specifications, and (2) a factual description of the concrete violation? A general reference to 'the specifications' is not enough — name the exact article numbers and clauses.
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 →