STIB reserves a 60,000-case debt collection contract for bailiffs — but forgets to prove why collection agencies couldn't do it
The Council of State suspends STIB's decision not to select a debt collection company for a framework agreement on debt recovery, because STIB exclusively reserved the market for bailiff offices without adequately justifying why this restriction of competition was warranted.
What happened?
Brussels public transport company STIB sought a bailiff firm for recovering unpaid commercial debts, fare evasion surcharges and administrative fines — some 60,000 cases per year. In September 2025 it published a framework agreement via negotiated procedure with prior competition, titled simply 'Bailiff Study'. Venturis, a debt collection company, submitted a candidacy. On 20 January 2026, STIB's board decided not to select Venturis: it did not meet the selection criteria, and it was not a bailiff firm. Venturis challenged the decision. Its core argument: the real subject matter is debt recovery — and bailiffs have no monopoly over that. STIB artificially restricts competition by reserving the market for one professional group. STIB argued that most services involve judicial recovery (a bailiff monopoly), and it wanted a single point of contact from amicable through judicial stages. The Council of State found the argument serious. STIB failed to substantiate with concrete, verifiable data that most cases involve judicial recovery. Efficiency goals don't explain why other operators — possibly using subcontracting for monopoly services — couldn't deliver. The 'other tasks reserved by law to bailiffs' appeared too limited and separable to justify a blanket exclusion. The suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling reminds contracting authorities — even in special sectors with broader discretion — that they cannot simply reserve an entire market for one professional group. The fact that certain sub-services fall under a legal monopoly does not automatically justify reserving the entire contract for that group. The competition principle requires that restrictions be proportionate and concretely justified.
The lesson
For contracting authorities: if you want to reserve a contract for a specific professional group, provide concrete and verifiable evidence that other operators cannot perform the contract — including through subcontracting. A reference to a partial legal monopoly is insufficient if most services can also be performed by other players. For tenderers: if you're excluded because you don't belong to a certain profession, check whether the core of the contract actually falls under that group's monopoly, or whether it's an artificial restriction of competition.
Ask yourself
Are you reserving a contract for a specific professional group? Can you concretely demonstrate — with figures and facts — that the core of the contract falls under that group's legal monopoly? Or could other operators execute it, perhaps with subcontracting for the monopoly services?
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 →