Filing a suspension within 15 days without a lawyer costs you 994 euro if 'extrême urgence' is missing from the title
The Council of State declares a graphic design firm's suspension request inadmissible because the title of the petition lacked the wording 'extrême urgence' — even though it was filed within the 15-day deadline and the contracting authority's own notification letter referred to a 'suspension request'.
What happened?
On 25 May 2023, Bruxelles Prévention et Sécurité (BPS, also known as safe.brussels) publishes a contract for graphic design, layout and distribution of publications (reference BPS-BPV/DA-DO/JUR/2023.017). The contract falls below European thresholds and is awarded via a simplified negotiated procedure with prior publication. Four bidders submit offers, including Idealogy SRL from Schaerbeek. BPS awards the contract to Studio Stoëmp SRL and rejects Idealogy's offer for substantial irregularity: Idealogy calculated its price based on the 2021 annual report, which had fewer pages than the 100 pages that the specifications prescribed as the pricing basis. According to article 76, §1, paragraph 3 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017, that constitutes a substantial irregularity because it makes comparison with other offers impossible. The award decision is notified on 10 October 2023. On 23 October, Idealogy itself — without a lawyer — files a 'recours en suspension/mesures provisoires'. The problem: the title nowhere mentions 'extrême urgence'. BPS immediately raises inadmissibility. The Council of State agrees: article 15 of the law of 17 June 2013 stipulates that suspensions in public procurement matters can only be filed 'exclusively according to the extreme urgency procedure', and article 16, §1 of the Royal Decree of 5 December 1991 requires this to be explicitly mentioned in the title of the petition. An ordinary suspension request as Idealogy formulated it is therefore inadmissible in public procurement litigation. The fact that the petitioner is acting without a lawyer changes nothing: admissibility rules are of public order. Moreover — as the Council notes — BPS's notification letter of 10 October explicitly stated that the procedure is described in article 15 of the law of 17 June 2013, which precisely imposes this extreme-urgency procedure. Idealogy should have read that provision. The petition is rejected, with 200 euro court fees, 24 euro contribution and 770 euro procedural indemnity charged to Idealogy.
Why does this matter?
Bid managers and small bidders who want to bring their own case to the Council of State after a rejection or non-award face a textbook example of an admissibility trap here. A well-reasoned petition filed within the 15-day deadline is not enough. One missing phrase in the title closes off the Council of State for any substantive review — even if that substance has merit. The merits of the case (was Idealogy's pricing really a substantial irregularity?) are never assessed. For the petitioner, this means: nearly 1,000 euro in costs and no second chance, since the 15-day deadline has by then expired.
The lesson
If you want to challenge a suspension in a public procurement case, the title of your petition MUST explicitly mention that it concerns an 'extreme urgency' (uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid / extrême urgence) action. This is non-negotiable — even if the contracting authority's notification letter seemingly allows an 'ordinary' suspension request, article 15 of the law of 17 June 2013 applies as the overriding rule. Read that provision before filing anything. For those acting without a lawyer: this is exactly the kind of technical pitfall for which a lawyer experienced in public procurement is worth twice his fee.
Ask yourself
Did you receive a rejection or award decision with the notice 'you can file a suspension request within 15 days'? First check: read article 15 of the law of 17 June 2013. Second check: ensure your petition contains the literal wording 'uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid' or 'extrême urgence' in the TITLE (not just somewhere in the text) — without those words, your request is inadmissible and you have no second chance.
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 →