E-bike supplier's claim against Genk's framework agreement cancellation rejected for late filing
Claim rejected: Bezõe's extreme urgency suspension claim against Genk's cancellation of the e-bike framework agreement was filed too late — the fifteen-day period starts from the sending of the registered letter, not from receipt. The Council additionally finds that budget constraints constitute valid grounds for cancellation.
What happened?
The city of Genk tendered in September 2023 a framework agreement for the supply of electric bikes for Groep Genk, with the city acting as central purchasing body for multiple entities. Maximum value: EUR 600,000 including VAT. Seven tenderers submitted offers, including Bezõe. The award procedure progressed slowly: between December 2023 and March 2024, Bezõe repeatedly inquired about progress without satisfactory response. On 12 March 2024, the city decided to cancel the procedure, citing only ¼ of the original budget remaining. Bezõe filed an extreme urgency suspension claim on 2 April 2024. After learning of the application, the city withdrew the first cancellation decision on 16 April 2024 — acknowledging 'somewhat ambiguous' motivation — and adopted the same day a new, more extensively motivated cancellation decision. The new reasoning pointed to increased scarcity of public funds due to successive crises, high inflation, high interest rates, weak economic conditions, the approaching end of the legislative cycle, and the multi-year nature of the framework agreement until 31/12/2027. Notification was by email on 17 April 2024 and by registered letter sent on 19 April 2024 (delivered to Bezõe on 26 April). Bezõe filed a new extreme urgency claim on 11 May 2024 against the second cancellation decision. The Council rejected the claim primarily for late filing. On the commencement of the fifteen-day period, the Council ruled — based on the statutory text, Directive 89/665/EEC (Article 2quater) and parliamentary preparatory works — that it starts from the date of sending the registered letter (19 April 2024), not from receipt. The deadline expired on 4 May 2024 (extended to 6 May due to Saturday). The 11 May filing was therefore late. Additionally examining the merits, the Council found all three grounds of the single plea not serious: budget constraints are valid grounds for cancellation, multi-year plan credits can be reallocated, and Article 85 allows cancellation at any stage, including after tenderers have incurred costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling contains a principled decision on calculating the fifteen-day period for extreme urgency suspension claims in public procurement: the period starts from the date of sending the registered letter, not from receipt by the addressee. This legal certainty choice is extensively motivated by reference to the statutory text, the European directive and parliamentary preparatory works. The ruling additionally confirms that budget constraints, even when arising during the procedure, constitute valid grounds for cancelling an award procedure.
The lesson
Deadline monitoring is crucial: the fifteen-day period for an extreme urgency claim starts from the date of sending the registered letter, not from receipt — even if postal delivery is delayed. Always calculate the deadline from the sending date. As contracting authority: budget constraints justify cancellation, but motivate thoroughly and avoid inconsistencies with earlier communications. It is better to issue one clearly motivated decision than to have to withdraw and redo an ambiguous one.
Ask yourself
As tenderer, have I calculated the deadline from the sending date of the registered letter rather than from receipt? As contracting authority, have I thoroughly motivated my cancellation decision from the outset to avoid the need for withdrawal and redo?
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 →