Lifting of urgent suspension and rejection of annulment appeal for lot 3 (operations) of specialized ICT services FOD Chancellery after withdrawal — intervening party charged with intervention costs
The Council of State lifted the urgent suspension ordered by judgment 264.038 of 1 September 2025 and rejected BV A.'s annulment appeal against the award of lot 3 (operations) of the specialized ICT services contract by the FOD Chancellery as moot, after the respondent withdrew the contested decision on 29 September 2025, with costs charged to the respondent and the intervening party NV I. charged with its own intervention costs.
What happened?
The FOD Chancellery awarded lot 3 (operations) of a specialized ICT services contract to NV I. via open procedure. An urgent suspension was granted on 1 September 2025 (judgment 264.038) and NV I.'s intervention request was allowed. BV A. filed an annulment appeal on 15 September 2025. The FOD withdrew the award on 29 September 2025. The Council lifted the suspension, rejected the appeal as moot, charged costs to the respondent, and charged the intervening party with its own intervention costs (€150).
Why does this matter?
This ruling shows that the intervening party also bears its own costs when the authority withdraws after a suspension is granted.
The lesson
As intervening party: weigh the risk of withdrawal against intervention costs. As tenderer: a prior suspension strengthens your damages position.
Ask yourself
Are you considering intervening in a case where the authority might withdraw? You'll bear your own costs.
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 →