Actiris rejects the bid, then withdraws its decision: the extreme-urgency action loses its object — but Actiris pays the costs
After Actiris had rejected the bid of BV J. for a coffee-machine and fair-trade supplies contract as substantially irregular, and the applicant had sought suspension under extreme urgency, Actiris withdrew the contested decision itself; the action thereby lost its object and became inadmissible, but the Council of State nonetheless placed the costs — roll fee, contribution and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros — on Actiris.
What happened?
Actiris, the Brussels employment service, launched a public contract for the rental of coffee and hot-drink machines and the purchase of related supplies, with an emphasis on fair-trade instant coffee and other sustainable goods. BV J. submitted a bid, but Actiris decided to reject it as substantially irregular and to award the contract to one of the other tenderers. On 26 March 2026 BV J. brought an action and sought suspension of that decision under extreme urgency. By orders of 27 March and 2 April 2026 the procedural calendar was set in consultation with the designated member of the auditorate; the hearing took place on 22 April 2026, with chamber president Geert Debersaques reporting and first auditor Ines Martens giving an opinion concurring with the judgment. The case never reached a substantive debate. After the hearing on the extreme-urgency action had first been set for 8 April 2026 by the order of 27 March 2026, Actiris withdrew the contested decision by a decision of its delegated director-general and delegated deputy director-general of 2 April 2026. With that withdrawal there was no longer any decision to suspend: the Council of State found that the extreme-urgency action had become without object and therefore inadmissible, and dismissed it. On costs, however, the Council ruled against Actiris: the defending party was ordered to pay the costs of the extreme-urgency action, set at a roll fee of 200 euros, a contribution of 26 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros owed to BV J.
Why does this matter?
This judgment shows how an unsuccessful bidder can pressure a contracting authority through extreme-urgency suspension, and how an action that formally ends ‘without object’ can still be a favourable result. A bidder who challenges the rejection of its bid as substantially irregular and quickly resorts to the extreme-urgency procedure forces the authority to choose: argue the merits, or withdraw its own decision before the Council rules. If the authority opts for withdrawal — as Actiris did here, even before the first scheduled hearing — the object of the action falls away and the Council need not rule on the merits. That seemingly neutral ending conceals a concrete benefit for the applicant: the Council places the costs of the proceedings, including a procedural indemnity of 770 euros, on the authority. For the applicant the action means the contested award choice is off the table and its costs are recovered; for the authority, withdrawal is a legitimate way out to reconsider a contested decision, but one that carries the cost consequences of a loss.
The lesson
If you are a bidder whose offer was rejected as substantially irregular, the extreme-urgency suspension is the lever to block the award in time. If the authority then withdraws its decision, do not simply abandon the action: expressly claim your procedural indemnity and costs. Here the Council dismissed the action for loss of object, but placed the full costs — roll fee (200 euros), contribution (26 euros) and procedural indemnity (770 euros) — on Actiris. As an authority, the mirror message is that withdrawing a contested rejection or award is a valid way to remove a procedural vulnerability before the Council rules, but that you will usually, even without a ruling on the merits, bear the costs and the procedural indemnity as the losing party. Withdrawing to pre-empt an extreme-urgency hearing buys peace on the merits, not on the costs.
Ask yourself
After your bid was rejected as substantially irregular, did you consider the extreme-urgency procedure as the fastest way to block the award to a competitor? And if the authority withdraws its decision: do you know that your action thereby becomes without object, but that you can recover your procedural indemnity and costs if you expressly claim them? As an authority: do you realise that withdrawing a contested decision removes the substantive debate, but as a rule costs you the dispute’s costs and the procedural indemnity as the losing party?
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 →