Suspension won, but no annulment action filed: the Council of State lifts its own suspension — though CIPAL still foots the bill
Two bidders obtained, under extreme urgency, the suspension of the decision of the service-providing association CIPAL to award a framework agreement for ANPR cameras through a competitive procedure with negotiation, but then filed no annulment action; the Council of State had to lift that suspension (article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph), while CIPAL — as the losing party in the suspension phase — nonetheless bore the costs and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros.
What happened?
The service-providing association CIPAL decided to award a public supplies contract through a competitive procedure with negotiation and, to that end, approved the selection guide for the ‘Framework agreement concerning an integrated end-to-end solution for the entire enforcement chain by means of ANPR cameras (CSMRTHAN25)’. Two bidders, T. NV and P. NV, sought the suspension of that decision under extreme urgency. By judgment no. 265.209 of 16 December 2025 the Council of State granted that application and ordered the suspension of the execution of the contested decision. The case then proceeded in writing: by order of 11 March 2026 the president of the XIVth chamber proposed, in accordance with article 26, § 2, of the Regent’s Decree of 23 August 1948, that the case not be dealt with at a public hearing unless a party so requested. No party requested a hearing, the debate was closed and the case taken under advisement on 22 April 2026. The applicants had, however, filed no action for annulment of the contested decision after their suspension application. In that case the Council of State is, under article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph, of its coordinated laws, bound to lift the suspension ordered. The Council therefore lifted the suspension ordered by judgment no. 265.209. Yet the defending party, CIPAL, was ordered to pay the costs of the suspension application: a roll fee of 400 euros, a contribution of 26 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros, due to the applicants. The judgment was delivered by the XIVth chamber on 6 May 2026.
Why does this matter?
The judgment exposes a trap that can catch even a winning bidder. Suspension under extreme urgency is, in procurement, a powerful but provisional weapon: it freezes the award, but it does not live on its own. A bidder who obtains the suspension must also file an action for annulment within the statutory time limit to have the case decided on the merits. If that does not happen, the Council of State is not free to let the suspension continue: article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph, obliges it to lift it. The practical consequence is that the frozen decision becomes enforceable again and the authority can continue the procedure. At the same time the judgment shows a reassuring flip side: lifting the suspension for want of an annulment action does not erase the outcome of the suspension phase. Because the suspension had been ordered, CIPAL counted as the losing party and bore the costs and the procedural indemnity. The gain in the suspension phase thus remains acquired, even if the bidder later drops the case.
The lesson
If, as a bidder, you obtain the suspension of an award or selection decision under extreme urgency, do not treat that as the end point. If you want to keep that suspension and fight the case on the merits, file an action for annulment in time; if you do not, the Council must lift the suspension (article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph) and the contested decision becomes enforceable again. If you deliberately decide not to pursue — for instance because the authority has meanwhile backed down — know that you do not lose your procedural indemnity from the suspension phase: it follows the outcome of the suspension, not the later lifting. If you are a contracting authority, the judgment teaches the mirror image: a suspension ordered against you lapses automatically if the applicant files no annulment action, but you bear the costs of that suspension phase as the losing party.
Ask yourself
Do you know that a suspension under extreme urgency is only provisional and lapses if you file no action for annulment (article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph)? After obtaining the suspension, have you tracked the time limit for the annulment action — or do you risk the contested decision becoming enforceable again? Do you realise that lifting the suspension for want of an annulment action does not affect your right to the procedural indemnity from the suspension phase? As an authority, do you realise that a suspension ordered against you lapses automatically without an annulment action, but that you bear the costs of that phase as the losing party (here roll fee 400 euros, contribution 26 euros, procedural indemnity 770 euros)?
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 →