Tender notices, specifications, award decisions and signed contracts are not 'business secrets' — STIB cannot shield its camera procurement since 2000 from the Ligue des droits humains
The Council of State rejects the Brussels public transport operator STIB's suspension request against a CADA decision ordering disclosure of its camera procurement files since 2000 to the Ligue des droits humains, because urgency is lacking now that CADA no longer holds the documents.
What happened?
In June 2024 the Ligue des droits humains asked STIB for (a) the list and location of all fixed surveillance cameras in public spaces in the Brussels Region plus impact analyses, and (b) all procurement documents (notices, specifications, award decisions, signed contracts) regarding surveillance systems (fixed and mobile cameras, thermal, drones, bodycams, ANPR, switches and software) acquired since 2000. STIB did not respond within the deadline; the NGO appealed to CADA (Brussels Region's access-to-documents commission). CADA ruled the appeal admissible and well-founded, ordering STIB to provide redacted versions by 6 November 2024. STIB filed a suspension appeal. On the procurement angle, STIB raised three arguments: (1) the request was too general, (2) offers are confidential under article 13 of the 17 June 2016 procurement law, (3) the 10-year retention period under article 164 § 4 meant STIB 'possibly' no longer held all files. CADA rejected each: the request was precisely formulated (document types + system categories + period), and the fact that it covers multiple contracts does not make it too general; the offers were not covered by the request — which targeted notices, specifications, award decisions and signed contracts, which are 'not confidential by nature' and not covered by article 13; article 164 § 4 imposes a MINIMUM retention, not a destruction obligation. 'It is possible we no longer hold' is insufficient — the authority must concretely verify. The Council rejected the suspension on urgency: CADA no longer held the documents (STIB had only allowed consultation via Ansarada), CADA never redacts itself, so the risk of disclosure is currently 'prima facie inexistent'.
Why does this matter?
This is the clearest recent precedent on which procurement documents must be disclosed. Tender notices, specifications, award decisions and signed contracts are not business secrets by nature. Article 13 of the procurement law only protects information that economic operators themselves marked as confidential in their offers — not the contracting authority's own procurement documents. A company wanting to benchmark against earlier awards by a specific authority can therefore request access via freedom-of-information rules. And the 10-year retention period in article 164 § 4 is a minimum, not a maximum: 'we might no longer have the files' is not a valid refusal ground.
The lesson
As a market participant: a freedom-of-information request is a legitimate way to obtain specifications, award decisions and contracts of competitors with the same authority. The authority cannot shield its own procurement documents behind a blanket 'business secret' claim. As a contracting authority: do not classify procurement documents as confidential by default. Only offer content that tenderers themselves flagged as confidential falls under article 13. Specifications, award reports and signed contracts are in principle public. Refuse disclosure only on concrete, motivated grounds, not by invoking a retention period you cannot properly rely on.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority receiving a FOIA request on public contracts: have you formulated a concrete refusal ground per document, or are you generically invoking 'business secret' and 'retention period'? Have you actually checked which documents you still hold? Is your redaction limited to what tenderers marked as confidential?
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 →