An annulment action that lasts less than a month: the municipality simply withdraws — and pays €996 to the unsuccessful surveyor
The Council of State dismisses the annulment action filed by BV T. against the award decision of the Oudsbergen municipality because that decision has since been withdrawn, but orders the municipality to bear €996 in procedural costs because it was the authority that deprived the action of its purpose.
What happened?
The Oudsbergen municipality (Belgian Limburg) tendered a contract for the appointment of a surveyor-expert for 2025-2027. The college of mayor and aldermen awarded the contract to third parties, not to BV T., an Antwerp surveying firm. On 7 March 2025 BV T. filed an annulment action with the Council of State — no extreme-urgency suspension was involved, just the classic annulment procedure. Barely three weeks later, on 31 March 2025, the municipality withdrew the contested award decision itself. This made the annulment action moot: a withdrawn act cannot be annulled, including the implicit decision not to award the contract to BV T. The case was dealt with without a hearing and taken under deliberation on 4 June 2025. The judgment of 30 June 2025 formally dismisses the action, but the cost order goes the other way: Oudsbergen bears €200 roll fee, €26 contribution and €770 procedural indemnity — €996 in total — for the benefit of BV T. By withdrawing, the municipality implicitly acknowledged that the original decision could not hold, which under Article 30/1 of the coordinated laws qualifies BV T. as the prevailing party.
Why does this matter?
This judgment shows what happens when a contracting authority, faced with a seemingly strong annulment action within the deadline, opts for a 'strategic retreat': withdraw and re-decide. The applicant who filed the action is not left empty-handed — it recovers full procedural costs (€996) and gets a second shot at the contract via the new award decision. This is the simple, non-urgency counterpart of judgment 263.791, where the Flemish Community had to pay €1,372 due to a preceding extreme-urgency suspension (with higher indemnity of €924 and higher roll fee of €400). The takeaway for bid managers: even a 'regular' annulment procedure is a real pressure lever, and even if the authority simply withdraws, the applicant partially recovers its legal costs via the procedural indemnity.
The lesson
If the authority withdraws the contested award after your annulment action, take three steps: (1) inform the Council that the action is moot, citing the withdrawal decision, (2) file a cost liquidation note explicitly invoking Article 30/1 requesting that the authority bear the costs, and (3) keep actively monitoring the follow-up award procedure, since the withdrawal gives you a new chance at the contract. For authorities: withdrawal limits annulment risk but not cost exposure; weigh whether a quick correction via withdrawal is cheaper than pressing on and potentially risking €924 indemnity plus damages.
Ask yourself
Do you hold a written withdrawal decision? Is the withdrawal complete (including the implicit decision not to award to you)? Have you prepared a cost liquidation note under Article 30/1 for €200 + €26 + €770 = €996? Is the contract being re-tendered or re-awarded directly, and under what conditions?
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 →