When the contracting authority withdraws its award after your suspension, your annulment action is declared moot — but you still recover the procedural indemnity
The Council of State lifts the extreme-urgency suspension of 24 January 2025, declares the annulment action devoid of purpose, and orders the Flemish Community to bear the costs (€1,372 to the applicant and €150 to the intervening party) because the authority itself withdrew the contested award decision after the suspension.
What happened?
On 5 December 2024 the Flemish Community awarded the contract 'Brokerage mandate insurance pooling for Flemish government entities' to intervening party NV A. The unsuccessful broker NV V. first obtained an extreme-urgency suspension (judgment 262.128 of 24 January 2025), then filed an annulment action on 31 January 2025. On 7 February 2025 the Flemish Community explicitly withdrew the contested decision, making the annulment materially pointless. In its judgment of 27 June 2025 the Council finds that the annulment is moot due to the withdrawal, formally lifts the earlier suspension as a logical consequence, and — this is operationally the key point — orders the Flemish Community to pay €400 in roll fees, €48 contribution and €924 procedural indemnity (total €1,372) to NV V., plus €150 intervention costs to be borne by the intervening party. The reasoning mirrors judgments 263.835 and 263.836: where the authority withdraws the contested act itself, that is what the applicant wanted to achieve, which qualifies the applicant as the party that prevailed under Article 30/1 of the coordinated laws.
Why does this matter?
This judgment confirms that a suspension which forces the authority to withdraw its decision is a full victory, even if the annulment action is subsequently declared moot: you achieve your goal (the award is off the table) and you recover your procedural costs — here €1,372 from the authority and €150 from the competitor. This is very different from judgment 263.837 of 30 June 2025, where an applicant who failed without valid reason to file an annulment action had to bear the costs himself. For bid managers, the threshold for requesting an extreme-urgency suspension is lower than often assumed: even if the authority simply withdraws and re-awards, you recover your costs and get a second chance at the contract.
The lesson
If you obtain an extreme-urgency suspension and the authority subsequently withdraws the contested decision, still file the annulment action within 60 days (as NV V. did here on 31 January 2025) to preserve your cost position. Once the withdrawal follows, inform the Council that the action is moot and file an explicit cost claim under Article 30/1 requesting that the authority bear the costs. Standard tariff: €924 procedural indemnity plus €400 roll fee and €48 contribution. An intervening party that actively defended can also be ordered to bear €150 intervention costs.
Ask yourself
Do you have written confirmation of the withdrawal or a new award decision covering the same contract? Is the 60-day annulment deadline in your agenda? Have you prepared a cost liquidation note explicitly invoking Article 30/1?
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 →