Two bidders challenge the same award: the Council suspends for the first and adjourns the second sine die — as an insurance policy
On the same day the Council suspends the award to VENTURIS on application of INTERMÉDIANCE & PARTNERS, it handles EURO FIDES's parallel extreme-urgency application against the same decision — not by dismissing it as moot, but by adjourning it sine die so EURO FIDES retains its own procedural protection should the first suspension later fall away.
What happened?
The Intercommunale de Santé Publique du Pays de Charleroi (ISPPC) awarded a debt-recovery contract to VENTURIS on 26 November 2018 — a contract in two instrumentum: one for the hospital sector, one for the non-hospital sector. Two unsuccessful bidders responded independently: EURO FIDES CREDIT MANAGEMENT filed an extreme-urgency application on 14 December 2018 (rolled under A. 226.948/VI-21.377), and INTERMÉDIANCE & PARTNERS followed on 17 December 2018 (A. 226.962/VI-21.379). Both applications were joined at the hearing of 10 January 2019. The Council of State, presided by Imre Kovalovszky, issued two separate judgments on 22 January 2019. Judgment no. 243.447 on the application of INTERMÉDIANCE suspended the award to VENTURIS for insufficient motivation of the acceptance of the price justification. The question for the present judgment, no. 243.448 on the application of EURO FIDES, was: what do you do with a second extreme-urgency application against the very same decision now that the first has already led to suspension? The standard reflex would be: declare moot — there is nothing left to suspend. The Council takes a different path. Yes, EURO FIDES automatically benefits from the suspension pronounced in judgment no. 243.447 — VENTURIS cannot start for now. But — and this is the crucial point — that suspension can be lifted. Two scenarios: (1) INTERMÉDIANCE files no annulment application within the statutory sixty-day window after the suspension, or (2) it does file but loses — for any reason, on the merits or on procedural grounds such as missing an explanatory memorandum. In both cases the suspension lapses and ISPPC can start performance. At that point EURO FIDES would no longer be able to activate its own procedural track — it would be left empty-handed. To guarantee that legal protection without however running parallel procedures, the Council chooses a third route: the case is adjourned sine die. Not dismissed. Not suspended. Frozen — ready to wake up if judgment 243.447 loses its effect. Practical outcome: VENTURIS has not one but two swords of Damocles hanging over its head, ISPPC cannot perform as long as at least one of the two procedures is alive, and EURO FIDES has an insurance policy in case its co-challenger INTERMÉDIANCE drops the procedural ball. Costs are not decided but reserved ('réservés') — fitting for a sine-die judgment.
Why does this matter?
When multiple bidders challenge the same award decision, it often happens that one extreme-urgency application is faster or stronger than the other. The standard reflex — declaring the second application moot because there is nothing left to suspend — can leave the second bidder vulnerable. What if the first lets the annulment procedure die out, or makes a procedural mistake? The contracting authority could still perform. With a sine-die adjournment the Council retains the option to reactivate the second application. For bidders this means: file your own extreme-urgency application, even if you hear that another bidder has already filed. Not as a duplicate but as insurance. For the contracting authority: if you want to revisit the award after a suspension is in place, check that all parallel procedures are truly closed — a sine-die case can simply be put back on the docket. For the intervening party — VENTURIS in this file — this is bad news: one won suspension is not enough; you are held hostage by at least two files until both are fully wound up. Procedurally this is also a reminder that the Council reasons pragmatically: legal protection prevails over procedural economy.
The lesson
If you plan an extreme-urgency application against an award decision, and you hear that another unsuccessful bidder has already filed: file too. Don't stop with the reasoning 'my case will be moot'. The Council will adjourn your application sine die — as an insurance policy in case the first application fails procedurally or on the merits. Whoever does not file has no legal grip if the first suspension falls away.
Ask yourself
A fellow bidder filed an extreme-urgency application on 14 December against the same award decision you want to challenge. The hearing is scheduled for 10 January. Did you file your own extreme-urgency application before the hearing, or did you wait 'to see what happens'? If you did not file and the first application succeeds: brief celebration, but you have no safety net if that suspension is later lifted.
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 →