Even when the auditor, the scheduling order and the opposing party all speak of 'extrême urgence', your request remains inadmissible without those words in the title
The Council of State declares Solidairement vzw's suspension request against the award of school-fruit lots to Fresho inadmissible because the title 'requête en annulation et demande de suspension' makes no mention of extreme urgency — despite warnings from the auditor, a proactive correction by the registry, and explicit extreme-urgency references by the opposing party.
What happened?
On 14 and 19 June 2023, the Walloon Region publishes a European notice for a contract for the supply of fruit and vegetables to schools in the French and German-speaking Communities (programme 'Fruit and Vegetables at School', school years 2023-2024 to 2025-2026). The contract is divided into 20 lots by administrative district, with four award criteria (product diversity, didactic criterion, environmental criteria, and social criteria). Solidairement vzw from Meix-devant-Virton bids on lots 13 and 17. On 26 September 2023, the Walloon Region awards all 20 lots to Fresho NV; Solidairement's offer is rejected for substantial irregularity. The award is notified on 4 October 2023 by registered letter and email. On 19 October, Solidairement files a 'requête en annulation et demande de suspension'. The auditor immediately spots the problem and warns on 25 October that she will raise the admissibility issue ex officio: the title does not refer to extreme urgency, and an ordinary suspension is inadmissible in public procurement litigation. Solidairement responds on 31 October that it was misled by the annex to the notification letter, that the scheduling order itself mentions 'demande de suspension d'extrême urgence' as the subject, that the opposing party in its observations explicitly refers to the extreme-urgency procedure, and that the content of the petition clearly demonstrates extreme urgency (start date of services). The Council of State follows none of these arguments. The mention in the title is of public order and serves a dual purpose: not only a procedural interest for the Council itself, but also legal certainty for third parties — in particular the contracting authority and the awardee — because an extreme-urgency request immediately affects the standstill period (art. 11 and 30, §1 of the law of 17 June 2013) and the bid-validity period (art. 8, §2, paragraph 2). Anyone looking at the petition must immediately be able to know whether the standstill is 'rolling' or not. The fact that the registry was vigilant and proactively registered the case as extreme urgency is not enough to establish Solidairement's intention — it merely proves the registry's prudent action. The requirement is moreover compatible with the European procedural directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC: it actually reinforces the principle of effectiveness by immediately clarifying which type of recourse is involved. The petition is declared inadmissible.
Why does this matter?
This judgment explains the broader rationale of the extreme-urgency title requirement: it is not a pure formality, but a legal-certainty rule. The contracting authority and the awardee must be able — at first sight of the petition — to determine whether an extreme-urgency procedure is pending, because that determines whether they can conclude the contract and whether the bidders' commitment period is suspended. For petitioners, this means that 'rescue operations' afterwards (auditor warning, later corrections, scheduling order) do not cure the defect. The intention must be 'clear and unequivocal' from the petition itself — not from what others do with it afterwards.
The lesson
If you want to file a suspension against an award decision, check three things before sending. One: does 'uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid' (NL) or 'extrême urgence' (FR) appear literally in the TITLE of the petition? Two: is the law of 17 June 2013 explicitly mentioned as the legal basis? Three: are you within the 15-day deadline from notification? A 'requête en annulation et demande de suspension' without an extreme-urgency mention is automatically treated as an ordinary suspension — and that is always inadmissible in public procurement.
Ask yourself
Open your most recent petition against an award decision. Read the title aloud. Does it literally contain the words 'uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid' or 'extrême urgence'? If not: if you are still within the 15-day deadline, immediately file a new petition with the correct title — a correction afterwards does not work.
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 →