Telling the story of what went wrong is not a legal argument — without naming the rule that was breached, you get no merits review
The Council of State rejects L.G.C. Ltd's appeal against the award by Hasselt University of a contract for nitrogen tanks because the petition merely lists facts without naming the legal rules allegedly breached — and without a legal ground, the appeal is inadmissible.
What happened?
Hasselt University ran a simplified negotiated procedure with prior publication for the supply of nitrogen tanks (reference 2024-044). Six bidders submitted offers, including L.G.C. Ltd. All bidders were selected, all offers found regular. Based on the award criteria, the contract was proposed to be awarded to B. Ltd as economically most advantageous; L.G.C. ranked fourth. On 4 December 2024 the contract was awarded to B. Ltd; on 6 December 2024 L.G.C. was informed. On 22 December 2024 L.G.C. filed both an annulment action and a suspension request. The University immediately raised an inadmissibility objection: the petition contained no legal grounds — no reference to breached rules, no explanation of how those rules were concretely violated, just 'assumptions' from the applicant without substantiation. The Deputy Auditor reached the same conclusion and proposed to handle the case under the abridged debate procedure. No party requested a hearing. Debates closed on 23 April 2025. The Council adopts the objection in full. Article 2, §1, paragraph 1, 3° of the general procedural regulation requires the petition to contain 'a statement of facts and grounds'. A ground consists of 'mentioning the legal rule whose breach is alleged and the way in which that rule has concretely been violated'. To be admissible, a ground must indicate the alleged irregularity 'briefly but clearly'. The requirement protects the adversarial nature of the procedure and the defending party's rights. The Council adds pointedly: it is not for the Council to 'construct grounds itself out of a legally unsubstantiated narrative'. In this case, the petition was confined to 'a continuous narrative of facts' that does not meet the definition. No ground, no admissible appeal. And because the suspension request is an accessory to the annulment action, it falls too. L.G.C. must pay €200 court fee, €24 contribution and €770 procedural indemnity to the University — for a procedure where its grievances were never reviewed on the merits.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is part of a long line in which the Council of State summarily rejects petitions that fail to translate grievances into legal grounds. It is a procedural fundamental that many bidders — especially those filing without specialized procurement counsel — underestimate. An award may be substantively flawed, but if your petition does not expressly name the legal violation, you get no merits review. The Council does not construct grounds for you. For bid managers this is critical: the decision whether to engage specialized procurement counsel is not optional, and the short appeal deadlines (15 days for urgent suspension, 60 days for annulment) leave no room for later repair.
The lesson
If you are considering an appeal against an award decision, always engage specialized procurement counsel before the 15- or 60-day deadline expires. A petition must, for each grievance, clearly state which legal rule was breached (article X of law Y or principle Z) and how that rule was concretely violated. Listing facts or referring to attached correspondence does not suffice. When in doubt, file a conservative ground formulated as specifically as possible, which you can later supplement via a complementary memorandum.
Ask yourself
Does your petition, for each grievance, contain (1) an express reference to the breached article or principle, and (2) a concrete explanation of how that rule was breached in your case? If not, your ground is inadmissible and your appeal will be rejected without any merits review.
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 →