Annulment of non-selection for restoration works 'Salon Cousin' Royal Museums – selection requirement of at least two references specifically for Victor Horta buildings disproportionate, art-nouveau metalwork expertise not unique to Horta, unnecessarily restrictive of competition
The Council of State annulled the decision of the Royal Museums of Art and History not to select BV REMMEN for lot 1 of the restoration of the 'Salon Cousin', because the selection requirement of at least two references for restoration works on buildings specifically designed by Victor Horta was disproportionate — the required expertise in original art-nouveau metalworking and assembly techniques is not unique to Horta buildings, and the very limited number of eligible buildings unnecessarily restricted competition.
What happened?
The Belgian State (Royal Museums of Art and History) tendered restoration works for the 'Salon Cousin' in 7 lots via open procedure. Lot 1 concerned the metal structure and decorative elements. The selection criteria required at least 3 references for art-nouveau/art-deco restoration, of which at least 2 had to concern buildings designed by Victor Horta. BV REMMEN had extensive art-nouveau restoration experience but no Horta-specific references and was not selected. The Council found the Horta-specific requirement disproportionate: the required metalworking expertise is not unique to Horta (other art-nouveau architects used similar techniques), and the very limited number of qualifying buildings severely restricted competition. New arguments in the authority's final memoir came too late. Annulment ordered. Costs to respondent.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is a key reference for proportionality of selection requirements in restoration contracts. Selection criteria requiring references for works by one specific architect may be disproportionate when the required expertise is not exclusive to that architect. The authority must demonstrate that specific techniques are unique, not merely assume it. Reasoning must be included in the selection decision itself, not raised for the first time in court proceedings.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: be cautious with selection requirements demanding references for one specific architect's buildings. Demonstrate that the expertise cannot be acquired otherwise. The fewer qualifying references, the stronger the proportionality test. Document the necessity in the selection decision itself. As a tenderer: if a requirement is so specific that only a handful of buildings qualify, there is a strong disproportionality argument.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: is the specific requirement the only way to verify the required expertise? How many projects qualify as references? Is the requirement documented in the selection decision? As a tenderer: is the requirement so specific that it unnecessarily restricts competition?
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 →