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.
What happened?
On 30 August 2018 the Belgian State — represented by the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration — awarded three lots (2, 3 and 4) of a major catering contract to NV Compass Group Belgilux. The contract (specification no. DVZOE/2017/LVO/OP/CATERING) covered the supply of raw materials, the preparation of meals and their distribution in the reception centres of the Immigration Office. NV UMAMI CATERING disagreed and filed an extreme-urgency suspension appeal (UDN) with the Council of State on 14 September 2018. The hearing was set for 27 September 2018 at 11 a.m. — just thirteen days later. What followed illustrates the procedural dynamics of an emergency appeal. Compass Group attempted to intervene to defend its contract, but made a costly procedural mistake: it failed to pay the EUR 150 court fee, so under article 71, fourth paragraph, of the Regent's Decree of 23 August 1948 its intervention was deemed 'not made'. More importantly: six days before the hearing, on 21 September 2018, the Belgian State withdrew its three award decisions itself. This happened before the Council of State could examine the file on the merits. The result: UMAMI's appeal was 'without object', or at least the applicant had lost its interest in the appeal. The Council dismissed the appeal but ordered the Belgian State to pay the costs — court fee of EUR 200, contribution of EUR 20 and procedural compensation of EUR 700 to UMAMI. Compass Group, having failed to validly intervene, played no role in the judgment.
Why does this matter?
An extreme-urgency appeal forces the awarding authority into a choice within weeks: defend the award on the merits, or withdraw it to limit procedural damage. For bidders this means an emergency appeal — even without a substantive judgment — can be an effective lever. A file that is legally shaky rarely survives an emergency appeal; awarding authorities often take the pragmatic exit: withdraw, review, re-award. For awarding authorities the lesson runs the other way. An emergency appeal leaves no room for extensive defence. If you sense weak spots in your award decision, fix them before the appeal arrives — because once it is filed, you are locked into a timetable where every flaw is immediately laid before the Council.
The lesson
If you are a bidder considering an extreme-urgency appeal against an award: know that a thorough legal threat is sometimes enough to make the awarding authority withdraw on its own, without any substantive judgment. Make your file strong enough to make that pressure credible. If you are an awarding authority receiving an emergency appeal: within a few days, weigh whether your file can withstand a substantive review. In doubt? Withdrawing can prevent procedural damage — though you will still bear the other side's costs.
Ask yourself
As an awarding authority, did you receive an emergency appeal shortly after an award? Within three days, ask yourself: can I defend every decision in this file on the merits — motivation, price analysis, equal treatment, award criteria? If not: withdraw before the hearing. The closer to the hearing, the more expensive the outcome — even on withdrawal, you will pay the other side's procedural costs.
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 →