Second time, same move: in the parallel maintenance case too, Hye’s suspension is lifted and De Vlaamse Waterweg pays
In the twin case of judgment no. 255.137 — same parties, same district, but tender file ARC-21-0034 — the Council of State lifts the extreme-urgency suspension ordered on 1 March 2022 because Hye never filed an annulment action, and De Vlaamse Waterweg, having withdrawn the award on 8 March 2022, again bears the costs and the 700-euro procedural indemnity.
What happened?
This case runs parallel, from start to finish, with judgment no. 255.137 of the same day. On 18 January 2022 De Vlaamse Waterweg awarded the second maintenance contract for district 2 of the Central Region Division — here under tender file ARC-21-0034; where the initiating application speaks of ‘maintenance on land’, the suspension judgment describes the contract as ‘maintenance from the water’ — likewise to De Brandt. Hye also challenged this award on 3 February 2022 under extreme urgency and obtained the suspension by judgment no. 253.139 of 1 March 2022. On 8 March 2022 De Vlaamse Waterweg withdrew the award decision, which Hye reported to the Council on 15 September 2022. Because Hye filed no petition for annulment, the Council had to lift the suspension under article 17, § 4, third paragraph, of the coordinated laws — a bound decision, handled without a hearing after neither party requested one. Costs follow the withdrawal: De Vlaamse Waterweg bears the 200-euro roll fee, the 22-euro contribution and the 700-euro procedural indemnity; De Brandt bears its 150-euro intervention fee.
Why does this matter?
Together with judgment no. 255.137, this case is a compact illustration of how a procurement dispute over parallel contracts can end without any judgment on the merits: suspension, withdrawal within a week, no annulment action, and months later the formal lifting of a suspension that had already lost its object. That the Council cannot refuse that lifting underscores the provisional nature of the extreme-urgency suspension: it buys time, nothing more. The costs order completes the picture — an authority that withdraws its suspended decision pays roll fee, contribution and procedural indemnity per case, so here twice 922 euros for two parallel tender files. For practice, that double price tag is worth noting: whoever splits a contract into parallel files and makes the same mistake in both, pays the procedural costs in multiples too.
The lesson
The lesson coincides with that of the twin case, with one added accent: each contract is a separate procedure with its own costs tail. For bidders challenging several parallel awards: claim the procedural indemnity separately in each file, and guard the annulment deadline per file as long as the withdrawal is not certain. For authorities: a defect that creeps into several parallel tender files at once multiplies the damage — two suspensions, two withdrawals and two costs orders here flowed from one award decision that went the same way in two files.
Ask yourself
When challenging several parallel awards, do you treat each file procedurally as a self-standing case, with its own deadlines and its own claim for the procedural indemnity? Do you know that the lifting of a suspension for lack of an annulment action is a bound decision against which no defence helps? And as an authority: do you check before awarding whether an identified defect also creeps into parallel tender files of the same contract?
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 →