Federal Police win without pleadings: POLIS-SERVICE forgot to reply to the defence within sixty days and lost its appeal against the non-award of breath-test devices
The Council of State rejects — for loss of the required interest — POLIS-SERVICE's annulment action against the non-award of lot 1 of a framework agreement for portable breath-analysis and alcohol-detection devices for the integrated police, because the bidder failed to file its reply brief within the statutory sixty-day deadline after receiving the Belgian State's defence.
What happened?
The Federal Police organised a multi-year framework agreement for the purchase and maintenance of two types of portable electronic devices used daily in traffic enforcement: breath-analysis and breath-test devices (lot 1) and alcohol-detection devices. POLIS-SERVICE BV from Genk, specialised in this equipment, bid on lot 1 but received an undated non-award decision on 28 September 2023. On 24 November 2023, the company filed an annulment action through lawyers Chris Schijns and Dieter Torfs. The Belgian State, through lawyers Kiekens, Arnouts and Myin, filed its defence brief, notified to POLIS-SERVICE on 12 February 2024. From that date the sixty-day deadline in article 7 of the Regent's decree of 23 August 1948 ran: the applicant had to file a reply brief responding to the defence and confirming its claim. The deadline expired around 12 April 2024. On 19 April, the chief registrar sent the parties the notice under article 14bis, § 1. Neither party asked to be heard. POLIS-SERVICE had still not filed. On 21 June 2024, the Twelfth Chamber, presided by Paul Lemmens, applied article 21, second paragraph of the coordinated laws on the Council of State: failure to respect the deadline entails loss of the required interest in annulment. The appeal was rejected without any substantive review. POLIS-SERVICE was ordered to pay €200 registry fee, €24 contribution and €770 procedural indemnity — nearly a thousand euros for a case never judged on its merits.
Why does this matter?
Article 21, second paragraph is one of the strictest peremptory deadlines in Belgian procedural law. Its logic is procedural economy: an applicant who files an appeal but does not reply to the defence is presumed to have lost interest. The Council rejects without substantive review. For bidders this is critical: the deadline is short (sixty days, not extended during judicial recess), runs from the date of notification, and no warning precedes it — if nothing is filed, the auditor activates article 14bis, § 1 and the ruling becomes a formality. For contracting authorities, it is a powerful procedural safety net.
The lesson
If you file an appeal with the Council of State, put the date you receive the defence brief in your diary and count sixty days forward. On day 55 your reply brief should be filed — not day 59 or 60. The deadline runs through court recess and public holidays, and no informal step suspends it. Even if you have little to add, file a short reply maintaining your claim rather than nothing.
Ask yourself
Has a defence brief come in on your pending Council of State appeal? Do you know the exact notification date? Count sixty days from that date — if that day falls within the next two weeks and no reply brief is ready, this is the moment to call your lawyer, not next week.
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 →