Amicable settlement after suspension: the authority still pays the costs — even when the applicant waives procedural indemnity
After a UDN suspension applicant and City of Kortrijk reached an amicable settlement on the sewer inspection contract; the applicant withdrew without claiming procedural indemnity, but the Council nonetheless ordered the City to bear the costs of the annulment appeal — a nuance to the cost principle in withdrawals.
What happened?
On 30 September 2025 the City of Kortrijk awarded the 'cleaning and inspection of sewers 2025' contract to a third bidder. The rejected bidder — BV W. — filed for extreme urgency and on 17 November 2025 the Council, in arrest 264.870, suspended execution of the award. With the procurement seriously delayed, the City was in a weak position. On 27 February 2026 the XIVth chamber, applying article 26, §2 of the Regent's Decree, proposed to both parties to settle the case without public hearing unless either requested one. Neither party did. Before the Council ruled on the merits, BV W. notified the Council on 16 February 2026 that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and that she withdrew her annulment claim. Critical detail: she expressly confirmed that 'in light of this withdrawal, no claim is made for procedural indemnity, with all procedural costs being settled as well' — the settlement covered those costs. Yet the Council did not take a 'you sorted it yourselves' posture. With the words 'given the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate', the Council ordered the City to bear the costs of the proceedings (court fee). Costs of the UDN suspension itself had been decided in arrest 264.870, presumably also against the City. The annulment claim itself is moot due to withdrawal.
Why does this matter?
For bid managers: an amicable settlement with the authority after a successful suspension usually means you obtained something concrete (new procedure, contract anyway, damages). But ensure the settlement also expressly covers procedural costs, otherwise they may still be ordered by the Council — as here for Kortrijk. For contracting authorities: an amicable settlement after a successful UDN by the applicant is a sensible way out of a losing position, but do not underestimate the cost: even when the applicant expressly waives procedural indemnity, the Council can still order the City to bear court fees.
The lesson
If you as a contracting authority negotiate an amicable settlement after a suspension against you: make sure the settlement expressly covers procedural costs (court fee included), not only procedural indemnity. Otherwise you face an additional cost order from the Council on top of what you already conceded. As bid manager: note in the settlement that all procedural costs are settled — otherwise you expose yourself to an unexpected reclaim.
Ask yourself
Has your firm in the past two years concluded an amicable settlement after a successful UDN? Check the settlement text: is the court fee expressly mentioned, or only procedural indemnity? If only the latter, the other party may theoretically still go back to the Council for the court fee — verify whether that has happened or could still be pronounced in a later decision.
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 →