An unsigned internal spreadsheet as your sole proof of bankruptcy risk won't buy you a suspension
The Council of State rejects Lime's suspension action against a Brussels license award because the alleged threat to economic viability rests on a single confidential, unsigned document, and because Lime itself contributed to the damage by substantially expanding its fleet after being warned its license would expire.
What happened?
Brussels launched a call for applications in September 2023 for free-floating sharing licenses: two for e-scooters, three for shared bicycles, two for scooters, and two for cargo bikes. On 22 December 2023 the winners were announced: Bolt and Dott each received a scooter license (8,000 scooters combined), and Bolt, Dott and Voi each received a bike license (3 × 2,500 bikes). Lime Network — active in the Brussels market since 2019 under an older license — lost out for both scooters and bikes. On 20 February 2024, Lime filed an annulment action against the license awarded to Voi. Only on 4 April 2025 — over a year later — did the suspension action and interim measures request follow. Lime argued that stopping its Brussels activities would threaten its economic viability: Brussels represents 60% of its Belgian activity, its only alternative Antwerp would not be profitable, dismantling and storage costs for lithium batteries would reach €180,000 (more than the 2023 gross margin), and bankruptcy was imminent. The evidence for all these claims rested exclusively on exhibit 44 of the file — an internal document Lime submitted confidentially. Voi Technology Belgium, the beneficiary, applied to intervene on 7 May 2025. The Council dismantles both sides. Intervention first: Voi had been informed by registered letter on 4 March 2024 of the annulment action and the 60-day intervention deadline, which expired on 3 May 2024. The intervention filed only on 7 May 2025 is inadmissible ratione temporis — even though filed in the suspension procedure, as the suspension is accessory to the annulment. Then urgency: Lime rests exclusively on exhibit 44, unsigned, not attested by an accounting professional, with no reference to underlying annual accounts, invoices or quotes. The Council cannot verify whether the costs claimed are accurate or whether the projected evolution is plausible. Moreover, the Council calculates that a substantial part of the dismantling costs claimed relates to Lime's massive bike fleet expansion in 2024 — at a time when, thanks to a 31 January 2024 interim ruling by the Brussels court, Lime already knew its license would expire on 2 July 2025. The Council does not blame Lime for that expansion but notes that part of the claimed damage flows from her own risk assessment, not from the contested act. Suspension and interim measures are rejected; the intervention too. Voi bears €150 in roll fees.
Why does this matter?
A suspension action lives or dies by the urgency requirement. This judgment sharply illustrates the threshold you must clear. A good narrative about financial consequences is not enough — you need verifiable, dated, signed evidence, ideally attested by an accountant carrying professional liability. An internal spreadsheet or projection, however detailed, will not pass scrutiny if the other party cannot check it. The judgment is also a warning about interventions: the deadline starts from the notification of the annulment action, not from the later suspension request. And finally: you cannot attribute damage to the contested act if you magnified that damage yourself by continuing to invest after a clear warning.
The lesson
If you plan to file a suspension, do not treat urgency as an afterthought. From the annulment writ, gather: audited accounts, signed projections from an external accountant, invoices, quotes, concrete evidence of contractual commitments. Never rely on a standalone internal document as your sole evidence, certainly not confidentially — that deprives the other party of a response and deprives the Council of the ability to verify your claims. And be cautious about investments you make after signals that your position may lapse — those decisions can be held against you when damages are attributed.
Ask yourself
If you are preparing a suspension action and your urgency rests on 'economic viability' or 'bankruptcy risk': do you have signed, dated financial documents attested by an external professional? Or are you relying on an internal spreadsheet you drew up yourself? In the second case: you will probably not clear the threshold.
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 →