Eight grounds over 104 pages in an extreme-urgency petition? The Council of State reads that as proof the case isn't serious
The Belgian Council of State rejects Etude Bordet's extreme-urgency suspension against an SWDE water-collections contract awarded to Venturis, noting explicitly that an extreme-urgency petition setting out eight grounds over more than a hundred pages is hardly compatible with the 'apparent illegality' such a suspension requires.
What happened?
SWDE and the Liège water intercommunal CILE had jointly tendered a multi-year contract for collecting unpaid water bills. After a first 2024 award to Venturis was suspended by the Council of State in Bordet's favour, SWDE withdrew its decision, re-opened negotiations, invited best and final offers (BAFO), and eventually re-awarded to Venturis on 23 May 2025. Bordet — the incumbent collector for CILE — challenged not only the new award but also three 'preliminary' decisions: the re-invitation of BAFOs (because one bidder had missed the deadline), the withdrawal of the first award, and the opening of negotiations. The petition ran to 104 pages and eight grounds, including price irregularity, GDPR concerns about subcontracting to Tunisia, social dumping, and violation of equality principles. The Council of State dismissed everything. The three earlier decisions were time-barred (15-day limit from knowledge). None of the eight grounds met the 'apparent illegality' threshold. Most pointedly, the court wrote that the very length and complexity of the petition — eight grounds, over one hundred pages — is 'hardly compatible' with the extreme-urgency standard.
Why does this matter?
The instinct of many bidders and their lawyers in an extreme-urgency petition is to stack as many grounds as possible, hoping one will stick. This case says the opposite in plain terms. Extreme urgency is reserved for manifestly illegal decisions that brook no extended debate. A petition that unpacks eight intricate grounds on over a hundred pages is, by its own weight, evidence that nothing is manifestly wrong. The ruling also shows concretely what a contracting authority needs to do to survive a price-irregularity challenge: interrogate suspect items, demand justifications, demand supplementary justifications when needed, and document this in a separate verification report.
The lesson
If you are preparing an extreme-urgency petition: cut ruthlessly. Pick one, two, or at most three grounds on which you can show manifest illegality, and leave the rest for a full annulment action. Each extra ground weakens your case, not the opposite. And any preliminary decision you want to challenge must be attacked within 15 days of notification, not bundled later with the final award.
Ask yourself
You are about to file an extreme-urgency petition. Count your grounds. If there are more than three, ask for each one: would a reasonable judge call this 'manifestly illegal'? If not, delete it. And check whether any ground targets a decision older than 15 days — if so, it is already out of time.
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 →