If you withdraw your decision after a suspension is granted, you pay the legal costs for both procedures
Defence awarded a framework agreement for printers and multifunctionals to Konica Minolta and Ricoh, Canon obtained an extreme-urgency suspension, and the minister then withdrew the award decision — making the appeal moot but also picking up the entire bill for both procedures.
What happened?
The Belgian Defence ministry launched a multi-lot framework agreement for the purchase, rental (without purchase option) and maintenance of multifunctional devices and printers. On 1 October 2018, the Minister of Defence — also in charge of Civil Service — awarded lot 4 to Konica Minolta Business Solutions and lots 2, 3 and 10 to Ricoh Belgium. Canon Belgium, which had bid on these lots and won nothing, requested an extreme-urgency suspension. On 13 November 2018 the Council of State granted the suspension (judgment no. 242.923). Canon then filed an annulment application on 30 November 2018. The minister appears to have folded: on 21 December 2018, via the Minister of Budget and Civil Service, the contested award decision was withdrawn. The appeal therefore became moot under article 93 of the Regent's Decree of 23 August 1948. Formally the Council dismisses the action — not on the merits, but because there is nothing left to annul — and then shifts the costs onto Defence. Canon is awarded a procedural indemnity for both the suspension and the annulment proceedings: 1,400 EUR in total, plus 400 EUR roll fee and 40 EUR contribution. The reason: because of the granted suspension and the subsequent withdrawal, Canon must be regarded as the prevailing party in both procedures. The judgment does not state on the merits why Defence lost — that reasoning sits in suspension judgment 242.923 — but it does confirm the cost mechanism: an authority that withdraws after losing a suspension carries the full bill.
Why does this matter?
Contracting authorities sometimes assume that 'withdraw and start over' is cheaper than defending an award. This judgment shows the opposite: a withdrawal after a granted suspension costs you double procedural indemnity — once for the lost interim proceedings, and once for the annulment that becomes moot through your own withdrawal. For bidders the message is the mirror image: even if the authority 'voluntarily' restarts after your suspension, you remain the legal winner for cost purposes. That often means more than a thousand euros per procedure, and confirms that a granted suspension is not a Pyrrhic victory.
The lesson
If you win a suspension as a bidder and the authority then withdraws the award, file the annulment application anyway: only that allows the Council to award you a procedural indemnity for both procedures. Wait too long and the 60-day window expires — leaving you with the cost of the suspension but nothing for the annulment you never filed. As a contracting authority, weigh the cost of a withdrawal after a loss carefully: alongside reputational damage you also pick up the full procedural bill for both rounds.
Ask yourself
You won a suspension and the authority is talking about 'starting over'. Have you already filed an annulment application within 60 days of the original award decision? Or are you relying on the withdrawal alone — and missing the second procedural indemnity?
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 →