Suspension application rejected as inadmissible after withdrawal of award of lot 1 LED lighting framework agreement by ORES Assets: retroactive withdrawal removes prejudice – applicant considered successful party for costs
The Council of State rejected the application for suspension under extreme urgency by SIGNIFY BELGIUM SA against ORES ASSETS SC as inadmissible, after ORES Assets retroactively withdrew the award decision of 5 September 2025 for lot 1 ('catalogue') of the framework agreement for LED public lighting luminaires on 1 October 2025, so that SIGNIFY was no longer harmed within the meaning of article 14 of the Act of 17 June 2013 — but SIGNIFY was considered the successful party and ORES Assets was ordered to bear the costs.
What happened?
SIGNIFY BELGIUM SA filed an application for suspension under extreme urgency on 25 September 2025 against the decision of the board of directors of ORES Assets SC of 5 September 2025 awarding lot 1 ('catalogue') of the framework agreement for LED public lighting luminaires and LED public lighting projectors to Lena Lighting SA, Lightwell BV and Schréder BE SA. On 3 October 2025, ORES Assets informed the Council that the contested decision had been withdrawn by decision of 1 October 2025. Both parties deferred to the Council's wisdom on the admissibility consequences. The Council held that the retroactive withdrawal meant the alleged violations had neither harmed nor risked harming SIGNIFY. The admissibility condition under article 14 of the 2013 Act was no longer met, and the application was declared inadmissible. Confidentiality of SIGNIFY's tender was maintained. SIGNIFY was considered the successful party; ORES Assets was ordered to bear costs of €200 court fee, €26 contribution, and €770 procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms — on the same date and by the same judge as ruling no. 264.616 — the established case law on the consequences of withdrawing an award decision for the admissibility of a pending extreme urgency application. Retroactive withdrawal removes the prejudice, rendering the application inadmissible, while the applicant is considered the successful party and the respondent bears costs. The two rulings together demonstrate consistent application of this mechanism.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, withdrawing an award decision after an extreme urgency application renders the application inadmissible, but you bear the costs — often preferable to risking a suspension order. As a tenderer, filing may prompt withdrawal, effectively achieving your goal with cost recovery, even though your application is formally rejected.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: has the award decision been withdrawn after your application? Your application will likely be declared inadmissible, but you recover costs. Check whether the withdrawal is retroactive and whether a new award decision has been taken. As a contracting authority: with a pending application, consider whether withdrawal with cost acceptance is preferable to risking a suspension order.
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 →