One word in your petition's title — 'extrême' — decides whether your suspension is even heard
The Belgian Council of State rules Digicatalyst's suspension petition against a Brussels parking-agency contract inadmissible because the petition was titled 'Requête d'annulation' and only invoked 'urgence' instead of the 'extrême urgence' mandated by Article 15 of the 2013 Public Procurement Remedies Act.
What happened?
The Brussels parking agency had tendered a public services contract for an external 'Digital Strategy Manager' consultant. On 12 June 2025 it rejected Digicatalyst's bid and awarded the contract to KEIRO. Through its lawyer, Digicatalyst filed a petition on 25 June 2025 seeking suspension, annulment, reinstatement in the evaluation process, and leave to submit further evidence. The case was scheduled and heard on extreme-urgency timing. But the petition was titled 'Requête d'annulation de la décision d'attribution', mentioned only 'urgence' (not 'extrême urgence'), and asked for 'suspension' without the required formula. Article 15 of the 2013 Remedies Act requires that suspension petitions in public-procurement cases be introduced EXCLUSIVELY via the extreme-urgency procedure; Article 8, §1 of the Royal Decree of 19 November 2024 mandates the words 'demande de suspension d'extrême urgence' in the title itself. The Council of State held that the difference between 'urgence' (ordinary référé) and 'extrême urgence' (extreme-urgency référé) is substantive, not cosmetic: they are two distinct procedures under two separate chapters of the Royal Decree. By invoking only 'urgence', the petitioner placed herself in the ordinary procedure — which is unavailable in procurement matters. The admissibility rules are of public order; the court cannot cure the defect even if all parties understood the intended procedure. Petition inadmissible; reinstatement request inadmissible; ancillary leave request moot.
Why does this matter?
This ruling touches every bid manager who contemplates a Council of State action. In procurement cases, there is no 'ordinary' suspension — the 2013 Remedies Act allows only the extreme-urgency track, and the 2024 Royal Decree requires that to be stated in the petition's title. A petition titled 'Requête d'annulation' or 'Requête en suspension' without the magic words 'd'extrême urgence' is automatically re-routed to the ordinary track, which in procurement means: inadmissible, on public-policy grounds. The court cannot show leniency, even when everyone understood the intent.
The lesson
Personally verify the title of any petition your lawyer files against a procurement award or specification. The title must contain the words 'Demande de suspension d'extrême urgence' (or Dutch 'Vordering tot schorsing bij uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid'), combined with 'requête en annulation' if you also seek annulment. Do not accept 'urgence' alone — that is a different procedure. If in doubt, ask explicitly whether Article 8, §1 of the Royal Decree of 19 November 2024 has been complied with.
Ask yourself
Does page one of your petition, in the title itself, contain the words 'extrême urgence' (or 'uiterst dringende noodzakelijkheid')? If not, your suspension petition in a procurement case is inadmissible — no matter how clear the rest of the text is.
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 →