When the contracting authority withdraws after a suspension, you don't need an annulment action — and you still recover your costs
The Council of State formally lifts the earlier-granted suspension and orders Logivesdre to bear the procedural costs, because the authority itself withdrew the contested award decision — meaning the applicants did not need to file an annulment action.
What happened?
Logivesdre, a cooperative in the social housing sector (Verviers), launched a global designer contract for its new head office — renovation, extension and new construction, file 024-ST-S-05bis. On 16 December 2024 Logivesdre took four decisions at once: BAJ Architects and the joint venture SSM Build Consult/Linear/BICE were selected, the bid of the consortium Renier Architecture and Fred Rahier Architecte was declared void, the bids of BAJ and SSM were considered valid, and the contract was awarded to BAJ Architects. Renier and Fred Rahier filed an extreme-urgency suspension request on 5 January 2025. On 5 February 2025 the Council suspended execution of that fourfold decision (judgment 262.253). Logivesdre then on 17 February 2025 — twelve days after the suspension ruling — explicitly withdrew the contested decision. The architects did NOT file an annulment action, precisely because the contested act had disappeared from the legal order through the withdrawal. Strictly, that would trigger automatic lifting of the suspension and cost the applicants: Article 17, §8, paragraph 4 of the coordinated laws prescribes that a suspension granted before the annulment procedure is lifted if no annulment action on the same grounds is filed within the deadline. But the Council applies the rule here with a crucial nuance. The architects had filed a cost liquidation note asking that Logivesdre bear the costs under Article 30/1 of the coordinated laws, because the withdrawal qualified them as the winning party. Logivesdre raised no objection. The Council rules: the uncontested withdrawal explains why the applicants refrained from an annulment action, and justifies treating them as the party that prevailed. The suspension is formally lifted (technical housekeeping), but Logivesdre pays €400 in roll fees, €48 contribution and €770 procedural indemnity — €1,218 in total.
Why does this matter?
This judgment is the mirror image of judgment 263.837 of the same day. There, Eloy Travaux lost its suspension AND had to bear costs because it failed without valid reason to file an annulment action. Here, Renier Architecture and Fred Rahier Architecte keep the benefit of their suspension (even though it is formally lifted) AND recover their costs, precisely because they did not file an annulment action — since the authority had meanwhile removed the contested act itself. The distinguishing fact is: did the authority effectively withdraw the act? If yes, an annulment action is pointless and the withdrawal itself justifies the cost allocation to the authority. If no, the obligation to file annulment within the deadline remains in order to preserve your suspension and your cost position. This distinction is operationally enormous.
The lesson
After a suspension ruling, the first question to ask your counsel is: has the authority explicitly or implicitly withdrawn the contested decision? Always verify this formally (ask for written confirmation or the new decision that replaces the old one). If the withdrawal is established, you can skip the annulment action and instead file a cost liquidation note — that way you secure your procedural indemnity. If the withdrawal is doubtful or absent, file the annulment action within 60 days; without it, you lose your suspension and pay the other party's costs.
Ask yourself
After a suspension: do you have written confirmation that the authority has withdrawn the contested act? If not, is the 60-day annulment deadline locked in your agenda? Have you prepared a cost liquidation note to file with the Council?
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 →