Loss of purpose of both suspension application and annulment action after withdrawal of SNCB rolling stock supply award — Art. 30 §5 single ruling with base procedural indemnity
The Council of State found there was no longer cause to rule on either the suspension application or the annulment action of SA AGC GLASS EUROPE against the SNCB's decision awarding the supply contract for bay frame chassis for M6 rolling stock and declaring AGC's offer irregular, the SNCB having withdrawn the contested decision — ruling on both actions in a single judgment under Article 30 §5, with a base procedural indemnity of €770.
What happened?
The SNCB launched a supply contract for complete bay frame chassis for M6 rolling stock via negotiated procedure with prior competition. The contract was awarded to SA Industrias Diaz; AGC GLASS EUROPE's offer was declared irregular. AGC filed an urgent suspension application on 22 November 2020, which was remised sine die by order of 22 December 2020. AGC later filed an annulment action on 6 January 2025. Meanwhile, the SNCB had withdrawn the award decision on 29 January 2021 and notified all tenderers by registered letters of 12 July 2021. The Council found the withdrawal had become definitive. Under Article 30 §5, the Council ruled on both actions in a single judgment: both had lost their purpose. The SNCB was deemed the unsuccessful party. Unlike the companion case (No. 261.951, NORDGLASS), no increase was granted as the proceedings had not gone beyond the urgent suspension stage — the indemnity was limited to the base amount of €770. Costs (€200 + €20 + €770) were charged to the SNCB.
Why does this matter?
This ruling, read together with companion case No. 261.951, illustrates Article 30 §5: when the Council is seized of both a suspension application and annulment action and the contested act is withdrawn, it can rule on both in a single judgment. The contrast with No. 261.951 is instructive on indemnity calculation: there, the late notification justified an increase to €924; here, since proceedings had not gone beyond the suspension stage, the base amount of €770 applies.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: withdrawal ends both proceedings via a single judgment (Art. 30 §5), but you bear costs. The indemnity amount depends on the stage reached. As a tenderer: file both suspension and annulment actions. After withdrawal, both lose their purpose but you obtain a costs award. The indemnity amount depends on the procedural stage and circumstances.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: have you withdrawn the contested act while both suspension and annulment proceedings are pending? As a tenderer: at what stage was the procedure after withdrawal? Was notification timely?
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 →