A two-sentence 'urgency' section in your urgency proceedings costs you €770 — and the €680,000 award won't even be examined
The Council of State rejects a bailiff's suspension request without ever examining the award — the two paragraphs on 'urgency' in his application fall short of the proof obligation in article 17 §1 of the coordinated laws.
What happened?
The municipality of Ixelles launches a procurement for legal services for the appointment of a bailiff to handle the judicial recovery of municipal claims (taxes, non-fiscal claims and administrative fines) over four years — estimated value €680,000 incl. VAT. Because legal services fall outside the strict procurement regime under article 28 §1, 4°, d) and e) of the 17 June 2016 Act, the municipality runs a light 'mise en concurrence': on 3 October 2022 it sends a tender request to identified firms, with a deadline of 28 October. One of those firms is 'Leroy et associés', whose Director Business Performance Arnaud Willocq examines the spec and on 14 October criticises a fee clause for the Evorec software — in his view contrary to the public-order RD of 30/11/1976. The municipality extends the deadline to 7 December and on 24 November removes the Evorec clause. On 7 December 2022 at 11:29 an offer is filed: not by 'Étude Leroy et associés' (avenue de la Couronne 358), but by Michel Leroy as a natural person (avenue Jules Malou 55, business number 0842.915.251). The municipality issues an evaluation report on 31 January 2023. On 14 February 2023 the council decides: the contract goes to SPRL Étude Robert, and Michel Leroy's offer is rejected on two grounds — it is a 'spontaneous offer' (he was not invited) and as a natural person he lacks sufficient capacity to execute the contract. Leroy goes to the Council of State on 17 March 2023 in extreme urgency. But the Council does not look at the substance. It quotes the entire urgency motivation of the application — two sentences: 'The loss of any possibility of executing the contract, should it be concluded, is a sufficiently serious inconvenience. This sufficient gravity is all the more demonstrated by the importance of the contract (€680,000).' And then it dismantles that motivation in four successive blows: (1) losing a contract is not in itself a sufficient inconvenience — it is inherent in the uncertainties of any participation in a competition; (2) the €680,000 value is invoked as financial inconvenience, but the applicant fails to show how this would jeopardise his activity; (3) he provides no element to weigh that amount against his turnover or business volume; (4) he advances no element giving the contract a 'reference' character that would benefit his reputation. Conclusion: one of the article 17 §1 conditions is missing, the request is rejected — without the Council having to examine other grounds. Leroy pays €200 court fee, €24 contribution and €770 procedural indemnity to the municipality.
Why does this matter?
Many bidders and their lawyers treat the urgency section of an urgency application as a formality: 'we lose the contract, so it's urgent'. This judgment confirms — again — that this does not work. The Council requires an ECONOMIC justification, with figures, ratios and a comparison with your ongoing activity. Without this it slams the gate shut and refuses to examine the substantive grounds, however strong they may be. For anyone seeking suspension this is NOT a procedural side-matter — it is the first hurdle to clear, and you must clear it IN the application itself, not at the hearing.
The lesson
Never write the urgency section of your urgency-procedure application in two sentences. Build an ECONOMIC case: (1) what is the estimated value of the contract relative to your annual turnover (give a percentage)? (2) has your business invested, hired staff or made advance payments in anticipation — what is the impact if it doesn't come? (3) is the contract a 'business card' (institute, hospital, internationally visible municipality) that would help you with future tenders — substantiate that with concrete follow-on opportunities you stand to lose? (4) if none of these three apply, consider whether urgency proceedings are the right route — a regular suspension or annulment claim may be more effective.
Ask yourself
Read the urgency section of your latest urgency-procedure draft. Does it contain: (a) a concrete percentage of the contract value relative to your annual turnover? (b) a specific reference to investments made or staff hired that are now without purpose? (c) one concrete reference effect (mention on your website, entry into a sectoral client group, qualification for future tenders)? If the answer is 'no' three times, the Council of State will not even look at your substantive arguments — rework the urgency paragraph before filing.
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 →