UDN against a 2022 BPOST selection and a 2023 award: BPOST withdraws both and the case collapses
French company SOLYSTIC SAS attacks by UDN both the June 2022 selection of Viapost Maintenance and the December 2023 award for the maintenance of BPOST sorting machines; BPOST withdraws both decisions on 12 January 2024, the action becomes moot and SOLYSTIC receives a €770 procedural indemnity.
What happened?
On 22 December 2023 French company SOLYSTIC SAS files a UDN suspension against two decisions of BPOST: (1) the 7 June 2022 decision to select Viapost Maintenance for the public contract on preventive and corrective maintenance of automatic and semi-automatic sorting machines (ref 2021-1-015), and (2) the 6 December 2023 decision awarding that contract to Viapost Maintenance. The case is scheduled for 11 January 2024. On 3 January 2024 BPOST informs the Council it intends to withdraw. The case is adjourned sine die. On 12 January 2024 BPOST actually adopts the withdrawal decision, notified by registered mail on 15 January 2024 with mention of remedies and deadlines. No bidder challenges the withdrawal in time, so it becomes final. The UDN loses its object. At the hearing of 25 June 2024 SOLYSTIC seeks a €770 procedural indemnity. The Council treats the withdrawal as a "substitute for an annulment": BPOST is the losing party, SOLYSTIC has won. The €770 base amount is awarded, plus the €200 roll fee and €24 contribution, all at the charge of BPOST.
Why does this matter?
This case shows two things. First, a UDN can reach even decisions taken more than a year earlier — here the 7 June 2022 selection — provided the applicant can show that the concrete harm only crystallised at the later award decision of December 2023. Second, the contracting authority — as in companion case 260.584 of the same day against the Province of Hainaut — chose within weeks to withdraw rather than defend. That pattern often signals that a second-look internal review found material irregularities. For bidders: SOLYSTIC won procedurally (BPOST must restart the whole procedure), even without a merits ruling. But the procedural indemnity stays at the base amount — no surcharge — because the Regent's decree of 23 August 1948 deliberately caps compensation after withdrawal.
The lesson
As bidder: a UDN can reach older selection or award decisions as long as you show that the actual harm only materialised at a later stage (e.g. the award). As contracting authority: think twice before defending a fragile award — a quick withdrawal is procedurally less painful than a suspension but resets the whole procurement. As initial awardee: the withdrawal is notified to you too — watch the deadline and decide quickly whether to challenge the withdrawal itself.
Ask yourself
As rejected bidder: if you discover that a months-old selection decision was irregular, a UDN against the final award remains possible — provided you can motivate that the harm only became concrete now. Ask your counsel to evaluate this thoroughly. As contracting authority: when facing a UDN against an old selection, check whether that selection was correctly motivated and executed — otherwise withdrawal and restart is often the least harmful route.
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 →