Filing an extreme-urgency suspension works: six days later the Flemish Community withdraws its non-selection decision itself — and pays 920 EUR in costs to the applicant
Ikanbi Group was not selected for the Flemish multi-channel customer contact centre, filed an extreme-urgency suspension on 8 October 2020, and six days later — before the hearing — the Minister-President of the Flemish Government withdrew the non-selection decision: case dismissed as having no object, but the Facilities Agency must bear the applicant's full procedural costs (920 EUR).
What happened?
The Facilities Agency (Het Facilitair Bedrijf) of the Flemish Community launched a framework agreement for the operation of a multi-channel customer contact centre (reference 2020/HFB/MPMO/69871). NV Ikanbi Group, a specialised call-centre operator, applied but was not selected. Against that non-selection decision, Ikanbi filed an extreme-urgency suspension on 8 October 2020. The parties were summoned for a hearing on 29 October 2020. But six days after the application — on 14 October 2020 — the Minister-President of the Flemish Government took a new decision withdrawing the contested non-selection decision itself. At the hearing the Council of State (12th chamber, presiding chamber-president Dierk Verbiest) could therefore only find that the application had become without object, or at least that Ikanbi had lost its interest in the application. Notable is the costs decision: the Council orders the full procedural costs (200 EUR roll fee, 20 EUR contribution, 700 EUR procedural costs — 920 EUR in total) to be borne by the Flemish Community, in favour of the applicant Ikanbi. The auditor had given concurring advice. A ruling that formally 'dismisses the application' (there was, after all, nothing left to assess), but factually a full judicial recognition of who was right in the file: the defendant withdrawing its own decision at the last moment may do so, but pays.
Why does this matter?
For anyone who has not been selected or awarded: filing an extreme-urgency suspension is no pure cost-lottery. In a significant number of files, the contracting authority responds by re-examining the file itself, and in a portion of those it withdraws the contested decision before the hearing. The material result — no suspension needed — feels like a defeat, but the costs order against the authority is an important signal: you added something to the file that the authority had not yet seen, and it pays off. For contracting authorities this is a painful but instructive cost item: 920 EUR per early withdrawal, plus the procurement procedure that must be reopened. Timely and thorough analysis of an extreme-urgency application before the hearing can avoid that double loss.
The lesson
As applicant: file your extreme-urgency suspension as soon as you have a serious ground — do not wait for the hearing of the ordinary suspension. There is a real chance that the authority will reconsider on its own initiative, and if not, the substantive assessment remains. As contracting authority: when you receive an extreme-urgency application, treat it internally as a mini-audit. Ask your internal team to substantiate every reason of the contested decision concretely before the hearing day — a withdrawal afterwards is also a procedural cost.
Ask yourself
Have you as a candidate bidder received a non-selection or exclusion against which you have strong arguments? What is the time gap between today and the hearing of an extreme-urgency application you would file tomorrow — less than a month? If so, and your file is serious, an extreme-urgency application is defensible even without certainty of suspension: you force the defendant to a timely internal audit of its own decision.
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 →