Use your own argument to torpedo the contract — then complain it won't be relaunched
The Council of State rejects Pluxee's claim against Charleroi's decision to renounce an electronic meal voucher contract, because the decisive motive — the irregular tender specifications — was precisely the argument Pluxee itself had raised in an earlier appeal.
What happened?
In June 2025, the city of Charleroi published an open procedure for electronic meal vouchers. Three operators submitted offers: Pluxee, Monizze, and Edenred Belgium. On 16 December 2025, the contract was awarded to Edenred. Pluxee challenged the award, pointing out that the specifications failed to specify the time unit for delivery deadlines — some tenderers offered in hours, others in working days, making comparison impossible. Charleroi read Pluxee's appeal and drew consequences. On 20 January 2026, the college withdrew the award and decided to renounce the contract based on the existing specifications. The decisive motive: the defects in the specifications made proper comparison of offers impossible. In the same meeting — but as a separate agenda item — the college also decided to use a framework agreement through the ASBL Centrale des marchés, where Monizze was the contractor. Pluxee then challenged the renunciation decision, arguing that the references to the centrale d'achat in the motivation effectively meant Charleroi had decided not to relaunch the competition. The Council of State disagreed: the renunciation was based solely on the defective specifications (the decisive and sufficient motive). The references to the centrale d'achat were superfluous motives that did not support the decision. Even if those superfluous motives were unlawful, Pluxee was not harmed by them.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates a classic pitfall: a tenderer who first denounces specification defects and then complains about the consequences the contracting authority draws from those defects. The Council of State draws a sharp distinction between the decisive motive (the defective specifications) and the superfluous motives (the reference to the centrale d'achat). Challenging only the superfluous motives does not demonstrate harm.
The lesson
If you successfully challenge tender specifications and the contracting authority then decides to abandon the procedure: understand that you have little room to challenge that abandonment itself. The authority may renounce the contract if the specifications are defective — which is precisely what you demonstrated. When challenging a non-award decision, always check whether you are targeting the decisive motive or merely superfluous considerations.
Ask yourself
When you challenge an award decision based on specification defects: have you considered the scenario where the authority withdraws the entire procedure rather than re-awarding? And when challenging a non-award decision: are your arguments directed at the decisive motive or at superfluous considerations?
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 →