Suspension application under extreme urgency rejected as inadmissible after withdrawal of award decision for sewer works in Rebecq — retroactive effect of withdrawal removes alleged harm — costs charged to the withdrawing authority
The Council of State declared inadmissible the suspension application under extreme urgency by SA Entreprises Paul Frateur against SC IN BW's decision of 17 December 2024 awarding the works contract 'Rebecq — Construction of the Wisbecq collector and pumping station' to SAT, as the respondent withdrew the contested decision on 14 January 2025 with retroactive effect, meaning the alleged violations had neither harmed nor risked harming the applicant — the hypothetical scenario of a challenge against the withdrawal decision not being established, the admissibility condition of Article 14 of the Act of 17 June 2013 was not met — costs were charged to the respondent as the unsuccessful party due to the withdrawal.
What happened?
SC IN BW, an intermunicipal water management company in Walloon Brabant, tendered a works contract for the construction of the Wisbecq collector and pumping station in Rebecq. On 17 December 2024, IN BW awarded the contract to SAT rather than SA Entreprises Paul Frateur. Frateur filed a suspension application under extreme urgency on 31 December 2024. On 14 January 2025, two days before the hearing, IN BW withdrew the contested award decision. At the hearing, Frateur argued the withdrawal was not yet definitive as a potential annulment of the withdrawal decision could revive the original award. The Council rejected this argument: the withdrawal operated retroactively, the alleged violations could no longer harm the applicant, and the Council judges admissibility based on established facts at the time of judgment, not hypothetical future scenarios. The application was declared inadmissible. Costs (€200 court fee, €24 contribution, €770 procedural indemnity) were charged to IN BW as the unsuccessful party.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates three key points about the effect of withdrawing an award decision on pending suspension proceedings: the withdrawal operates retroactively so alleged violations can no longer cause harm; the hypothetical argument that the withdrawal itself might be annulled does not maintain standing; but the withdrawing authority bears the procedural costs as the unsuccessful party.
The lesson
As an applicant: be aware that the contracting authority can neutralize your suspension application by withdrawing the award decision before the hearing. You will not obtain a ruling on the merits, but costs will generally be charged to the withdrawing authority. As a contracting authority: withdrawal before the hearing is effective but you bear the costs and the applicant may challenge any new decision.
Ask yourself
As an applicant: is the award decision you are challenging still in force? As a contracting authority: are you considering withdrawal to neutralize pending proceedings? Are you aware you will bear the costs?
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 →