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the framework-agreement award for printing the City of Antwerp's magazine to Roularta moot — the city had already withdrawn its decision after an earlier extreme-urgency suspension and now bears all procedural costs.
What happened?
On 2 March 2018 the council of mayor and aldermen of the City of Antwerp decided to award the framework agreement for printing the city magazine — tender GAC/2017/4770 — to nv Roularta Media Group. The unsuccessful bidder, nv Roto Smeets Belgium, considered the decision unjust and turned to the Council of State. First step: an extreme-urgency suspension request. By judgment 241,265 of 19 April 2018 the suspension was granted (the request was rejected for the rest). After the suspension, the council withdrew its award decision on 25 May 2018. In the meantime, Roto Smeets Belgium had filed an annulment appeal on 19 March 2018. Both parties — Roto Smeets and the city itself — filed a request to continue the proceedings. Auditor Frederic Eggermont drafted a report under article 93 of the Royal Decree of 23 August 1948. On 18 September 2018 the case was heard before deputy chamber president Johan Bovin. The Council follows the auditor: the contested decision no longer exists, so the appeal is 'moot' under article 93. Dismissed. But — procedural costs go to the City of Antwerp: • Court fee: EUR 400 • Contribution: EUR 40 • Procedural compensation (basic): EUR 700 Total: EUR 1,140. These amounts are lower than in judgment 242,360 issued the same day (Brugse Zeehaven, EUR 2,280) because there was only one applicant here — Roto Smeets Belgium alone. With multiple applicants, court fees (EUR 400 per party) and basic procedural compensation (EUR 700 per party) are multiplied. In the Brugse Zeehaven case there were two applicants (the joint venture Soetaert + Jan De Nul) — hence 800 + 1,400 instead of 400 + 700.
Why does this matter?
Two aspects deserve attention for bid managers and contracting authorities. First, the framework-agreement dimension. With a framework agreement, the final contract value is uncertain — it depends on future call-offs. Some authorities assume that challenges should therefore wait for an individual order. This judgment confirms that the award decision of the framework agreement itself is the correct moment to challenge — not later, once volume is already running. The pattern (extreme-urgency suspension → withdrawal → annulment appeal moot + cost order) works the same for framework agreements as for classical contracts. Second, the cost structure: the amounts you recover after a withdrawal-following-suspension depend on the number of applicants. A single bidder recovers EUR 1,140 (court fee + contribution + basic compensation). A joint venture with two partners recovers EUR 2,280. For large contracts where your legal fees far exceed those amounts, the suspension is therefore an incomplete financial remedy — but a useful contribution. For bid managers in a joint venture: doubled cost recovery is a side-effect of having multiple legal entities, not a reason to construct a joint venture artificially.
The lesson
If as a bid manager you win an extreme-urgency suspension against a framework-agreement award and the authority withdraws its decision: formally pursue your annulment appeal to the article-93 judgment. The EUR 700 procedural compensation per applicant is automatically recoverable, provided you do not abandon the appeal. If as a contracting authority you face a granted suspension: a quick withdrawal is procedurally the pragmatic exit, but expect a cost order that scales with the number of applicants.
Ask yourself
Have you won an extreme-urgency suspension against a framework-agreement award? Count the number of separate legal entities in your application — each is good for EUR 400 in court fees and EUR 700 in basic procedural compensation that the authority must pay after withdrawal.
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 →