Selling a €1.17 million plot to a competitor — the lost profit you claim cannot float between €594,000 and €950,400, or there is no 'urgency'
The Council of State refuses to suspend the municipal sale of a 14,443 m² plot to Immo-3B because Caselia Development fails to substantiate its economic loss concretely — a profit range of €594,000 to €950,400 is no proof of urgency.
What happened?
On 1 June 2017 the municipal council of Blegny decided to sell a 14,443 m² plot on the site of the former Caserne de Saive (a former military domain, 'Quartier Cahorday') by private negotiation with publicity, as part of an urban renewal project. The submission deadline was eventually extended to 31 March 2019. Three candidates submitted offers: Matexi Liège, Immo-3B and Caselia Development. On 23 May 2019 the council chose Immo-3B at €1,169,883. Caselia Development immediately turned to the Council of State. A first extreme-urgency suspension request was dismissed by judgment no. 245.009 of 27 June 2019 — not on the merits, but because Caselia had not been diligent enough in seizing the Council. Caselia was ordered to pay the court fee (€200), contribution (€20) and a procedural indemnity of €700. Immo-3B intervened and paid its €150 intervention fee. In the ordinary suspension proceedings that followed, Caselia invoked three types of harm: (i) economic loss from missing the project, (ii) loss of a 'reference market' — a flagship project that would build its reputation — and (iii) financial loss and reference loss for its architect partner Quadra Architecture & Management. The Council went through these point by point. The economic loss was estimated at 'between €594,000 and €950,400 net profit'. That range was so broad it lost any informative value. Caselia gave no indication how acquiring the plot would have affected its financial position — investment, cashflow, lead time. No documents showed that losing this project hit Caselia's viability. According to the Council, this was about the 'aléas et difficultés propres à toute participation à une mise en concurrence' — ordinary competitive risks. The 'reference market' likewise failed. Caselia argued the project would help it 'build a fine reference and develop expertise' — generalities that could apply to any project. Media coverage and the municipality's own framing did not establish specific reference value. For the architect partner's loss, the Council relied on a classic principle: harm to a third party does not give the applicant a personal interest. Quadra could have filed its own action; Caselia could not invoke that loss. Result: all three angles failed. Urgency was not established and the otherwise central debate about whether the sale contract had already been formed dropped away. The suspension request was dismissed; costs reserved.
Why does this matter?
Whoever turns to the Council of State in ordinary suspension proceedings carries the burden of proving urgency — concretely, in figures, and personally. A vague profit range from €594,000 to €950,400 is a starting prompt, not evidence. Generalities about 'reputation' and 'expertise' don't count — you must show why this particular project is so rare, complex or visible that its loss would be irreversible. And harm to a partner or sub-contractor cannot be claimed as your harm. This judgment also reminds us that public real-estate sales under urban renewal projects — even by private negotiation with publicity — fall under the same legal protection regime as classical public contracts.
The lesson
Build your urgency case before you file: present your projected margin as a single figure (not a 60 % range), back it with accounting records or a company auditor's report, and explicitly show how losing this project hits your liquidity, portfolio or continuity. To invoke a 'reference market', show why the project is objectively exceptional (rarity, scale, technical challenge, flagship status). And remember one basic rule: only harm to you personally counts — not your architect's, your joint-venture partner's or your subcontractor's.
Ask yourself
Did you give a single number for your loss in your application, or a range over 30 %? Did you attach evidence showing the loss hits your viability, not just your expected return? And does your application claim damage suffered by a project partner who is not itself a co-applicant?
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 →