A Flemish licence for non-urgent reclining patient transport doesn't grant mutual recognition for seated transport in Brussels — if Flanders doesn't regulate that activity, it has nothing to transfer
An ambulance company with a Flemish licence for reclining patient transport loses a Brussels framework contract for seated patient transport in light medical vehicles, because its provisional GGC accreditation expired during the procurement procedure and its definitive accreditation was only notified after the award decision — bad timing, says the Council of State, but no illegality.
What happened?
UVC Brugmann and UMC Sint-Pieter, two Brussels university hospitals, jointly tendered a framework agreement for medical and non-medical patient transport between their campuses — five lots. Lots 1 and 3 covered transport in 'Light Medical Vehicles' (LMV) — seated, not reclining patient transport. The specification required proof of an accreditation meeting the standards of two specific decrees (COCOF 9/12/2021 or GGC 8/7/2021). AMG Ambulance — already serving both hospitals for ten years — bid on 8 June 2023, attaching a UEA, a provisional GGC accreditation valid until 30 June 2023, and a Flemish licence for reclining non-urgent patient transport. On 11 July 2023, the contracting authority asked AMG to prove within 12 calendar days that its 'agrément VSL' for the Brussels region had been renewed. AMG explained the situation in subsequent emails: the GGC had refused her definitive accreditation on 20 July, she had filed a new application on 25 July, and she relied on her Flemish licence via mutual recognition. The contracting authority finalised the award report on 5 October 2023 and the board decided not to select AMG on 17 October 2023. AMG received her definitive GGC accreditation dated 16 October — but the notification letter was dated 23 October, with a digital signature of 24 October. AMG sought urgent suspension. The Council of State (12th Chamber, presided by Paul Lemmens) rejected all grounds. Three points stand out. First, marking the entire award report as confidential is 'apparently excessive' — a redacted version must be available. Second, the 11 July request was a valid art. 73, §3 demand for supporting documents; on 17 October the proof had not been delivered. Third, on mutual recognition: AMG was free to operate seated transport in Flanders only because Flanders does not regulate it — that's not an 'accreditation or equivalent title'. Brussels can lawfully impose stricter rules to protect patients. The Court summarised: 'The applicant seems to have had bad luck with the timing.'
Why does this matter?
For service providers operating across Belgian regional and community boundaries — patient transport, childcare, disability services, eldercare — the message is harsh but clear: mutual recognition only works when both regions actually regulate the activity and you hold a genuine accreditation in your home region. Implicit freedom because your home region doesn't regulate something is not a passport into a region that does regulate it. For bid managers everywhere: a provisional accreditation at offer is no safety net. If it expires during the procedure and you have no definitive accreditation by the date of the award decision, you're out. The Council won't draw a line on reasonableness or bad luck — what exists on date X counts; what is notified a few days later does not. For contracting authorities, one notable side-remark: marking the entire award report as confidential is excessive — redacted versions must remain available.
The lesson
As a bidder with an expiring accreditation: never bid without a written plan B — extension correspondence, written timing guarantees from the accrediting authority, or relying on a third party's capacity. Treat any art. 73, §3 request to deliver supporting documents within X days as a hard deadline, not a starting point for negotiation. As a contracting authority awarding cross-regional services: include a clear mutual-recognition clause specifying which foreign accreditations qualify as 'equivalent' and which parts of the contract may require local accreditation. Don't mark whole award reports as confidential — anonymise prices and trade secrets, but allow the unsuccessful bidder to test your reasoning.
Ask yourself
Suppose you bid with a provisional accreditation. On the date of the award decision you have an email of the new definitive accreditation — but the official notification is in the post. Who carries the burden? You. No notification on date of award = no proven accreditation on that date, even if the document later says 'with retroactive effect'.
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 →