Lost the extreme-urgency on 26 July, did nothing in August — Heyrman-De Roeck loses its appeal against three lots of waterway maintenance and pays €1,070 in costs
Heyrman-De Roeck filed a combined appeal against three lots of unnavigable-waterway maintenance, lost the extreme-urgency request on 26 July 2019 and let the deadline for requesting continuation lapse — the Council establishes the forfeiture and orders her to pay both the principal and the intervener's costs.
What happened?
On 20 June 2019 the Province of East Flanders, Integrated Water Policy Department, awarded the multi-year contract 'Maintenance works on unnavigable waterways of the 2nd category 2019-2023' in three lots. Lot 1 (Upper Scheldt) and Lot 2 (Dendermeersen) went to BVBA A. Audenaert. Lot 3 (Land van Aalst) went to NV Quintelier. NV Heyrman-De Roeck filed a combined appeal on 9 July 2019: annulment of all three award decisions plus a request for suspension under extreme urgency. By ruling no. 245.243 of 26 July 2019 the Council of State dismissed the extreme-urgency request. The ruling was notified to Heyrman-De Roeck on 31 July 2019. That triggered the fatal thirty-day period under article 17, § 7 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State. Heyrman-De Roeck did not respond. On 17 September 2019 the chief registrar sent the article 11/3, § 1 communication — again no response and no request to be heard. The Council of State, Chamber XII, presided by acting president Johan Bovin, established the forfeiture on 9 January 2020. Heyrman-De Roeck was ordered to pay the full cost package: €200 enrolment fee, €20 contribution and €700 procedural indemnity to the Province. On top came the intervener's costs: €150 enrolment fee for Audenaert. Total: €1,070 for a case that was never examined on the merits, and no remaining route to challenge the three awards.
Why does this matter?
For multi-year framework contracts and maintenance contracts — especially with multiple lots — the financial impact of a lost extreme-urgency ruling is large: four years of work goes to competitors. That is exactly why the temptation is strong 'to wait and see' what the contracting authority does next. But article 17, § 7 cuts the other way: silence by the applicant is presumed to be forfeiture. And if there is an intervener — often the winning competitor — additional costs come in from that side. In this file it was only a €150 enrolment fee, but in cases where the intervener is also awarded a procedural indemnity, the bill mounts quickly.
The lesson
In a combined appeal against multiple lots or multiple decisions, every lost extreme-urgency ruling starts the same clock. Within thirty days of notification, file an explicit request to continue the annulment proceedings, even if your confidence in a substantive ruling has dimmed. And factor the intervener's costs into the risk calculation immediately — they are independent of the main costs and stack up.
Ask yourself
Was your extreme-urgency request dismissed? Did you, within thirty days of notification (not pronouncement), file a formal request for continuation with the chief registrar? And if multiple interveners are involved, can you still bear the potential cost ruling if you miss the deadline?
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 →