Saying a lawyer has 'no State aid experience' while crediting his teaching of competition law that includes State aid is a contradictory motivation — and it gets annulled
The Council of State annuls the award of lot 18 (State aid) of the Walloon framework agreement for legal services because the evaluation panel wrote that Lexing's lawyer 'lacked practical experience in State aid' while in the same motivation acknowledging that he taught a university course on economic aspects of competition law and was a member of a research centre studying State aid.
What happened?
The Walloon Region launched a framework agreement for legal services divided into lots — lot 18 covered State aid and SGEI. On 14 October 2022 Minister Valérie De Bue awarded lot 18 to four firms: DEPREVERNET, CMS DEBACKER, DOUTRELEPONT and CLAYTON & SEGURA. Lexing Belgium challenged the award in extreme urgency. The firm scored 4/10 on sub-criterion 4.2.4 ('Relevance and added value of the proposed team', weight 10% — scale: 'very good' 8-10, 'good' 6-7, 'unsatisfactory' 0-5). The motivation read: 'Mr Norman Neyrinck does not demonstrate his expertise or practical experience in State aid; he merely mentions his interest and activism in studying and applying State aid law but cites no example; he highlights his active membership of the Liège Competition and Innovation Institute (LCII) but that institute is not dedicated to the lot's matter; he is maître de conférences at ULiège for a course on economic aspects of competition law; he can rely on team members with complementary and varied profiles; the administrative structure is trilingual.' By arrest no. 255.470 of 12 January 2023 the Council suspended the award. Central to the suspension: the motivation was internally contradictory. On the one hand the report criticised Neyrinck for not showing State aid experience; on the other it acknowledged he taught a course covering State aid (competition law including, as the parties did not contest, State aid) and was a member of LCII — a research centre that the Region itself, in its observations, expressly called a 'positive element' in the evaluation. Moreover, an element offered by Lexing — Neyrinck's annual training to French Ministry of Economy officials via Collège d'Europe — was simply not mentioned. Conclusion: those contradictions and the omission revealed a manifest error of appreciation. After the suspension, the Region had thirty days to request continuation of proceedings. It did not. None of the parties asked to be heard. Article 17, § 6 (procédure abrégée) was therefore applied: when a suspended decision is not defended, it can be annulled by accelerated procedure on the same serious ground. On 30 June 2023 the award was annulled, with the Region ordered to pay costs.
Why does this matter?
Two takeaways. The substantive lesson: an evaluation panel may rate an offer poorly, but its motivation must be internally coherent. Writing that a lawyer has 'no practical experience in State aid' while in the same paragraph mentioning his teaching in competition law (which includes State aid) and his membership of a competition research centre — without weighing those elements — is a manifest error of appreciation. Practical experience includes academic experience. The procedural lesson: after a suspension in extreme urgency the authority has thirty days to request continuation. If it does not, the decision can be annulled automatically via article 17, § 6. That is not a 'second round' for new arguments — it is a fast track to annulment.
The lesson
As an evaluator: re-read your award report for internal contradictions. If you mention an element neutrally or positively (academic role, research centre membership), you cannot then conclude that the bidder 'has no experience' — that is contradictory by definition and reads as a manifest error. As contracting authority: after a UDN/extreme-urgency suspension you must request continuation within thirty days — otherwise annulment via article 17, § 6 follows automatically. After the suspension, ask yourself: can I rebut this ground? If not, weigh whether to wait for the annulment or to withdraw and decide afresh.
Ask yourself
Re-read the textual motivation of every score in your award report. Tag each mentioned element as positive, neutral or negative. If your conclusion ('he does not demonstrate expertise', '4/10') does not flow logically from the balance of those tags — or positive elements aren't weighed — rewrite. Threshold: if at least one positively mentioned element conflicts with the final score without explanation of how elements were weighed, that is a ground for annulment.
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 →