Anderlecht withdraws the suspended municipal-sanctions software contract: an action without object, but the municipality foots the bill
The Council of State had already suspended, under extreme urgency, the award to InTouch Solution of a services contract for municipal-administrative-sanctions software, PDA terminals and the outsourcing of correspondence; when the municipality of Anderlecht subsequently withdrew that award, Inforius’s annulment action lost its object — a finding the parties agreed on at the hearing — and the municipality, as the party disguisedly annulled, had to bear the procedural indemnity and the costs.
What happened?
By a decision of 10 December 2024, the municipality of Anderlecht awarded InTouch Solution a public services contract for the ‘rental of an IT solution for the management of municipal administrative sanctions (SAC), the rental of compatible PDA terminals, including the outsourcing and franking of the related correspondence’. Inforius, an unsuccessful bidder, sought annulment and suspension under extreme urgency. By judgment no. 262.445 of 20 February 2025 the Council of State admitted InTouch Solution’s intervention and suspended the execution of the award decision under extreme urgency. The municipality then withdrew the contested award on 15 July 2025. It notified that withdrawal to all bidders by email and registered letter of 8 August 2025, stating the available remedies and the forms and time limits to be observed. No bidder sought annulment of the withdrawal decision within the prescribed time limit, so the withdrawal could be regarded as definitive and the action had lost its object — a consequence the parties expressly agreed on at the hearing. On costs, the Council held that the disappearance of the contested act through the withdrawal is a form of disguised annulment (‘succédané d’une annulation contentieuse’): under article 30/1 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State, the defending party then counts as the losing party and the applicant as the prevailing party. The Council decided that there was no longer any need to rule on the action, and placed the costs on the municipality: the roll fees of 400 euros, the contributions of 50 euros and the procedural indemnity of 770 euros awarded to Inforius. The intervening party, InTouch Solution, bears only the 150-euro fee attached to its intervention.
Why does this matter?
This judgment is a textbook example of a pattern that recurs in procurement litigation more often than one might think: a bidder obtains the suspension of an award under extreme urgency, the authority then withdraws its own decision, and the action formally ends ‘without object’. The bidder’s gain then lies not in a ruling on the merits, but in two other things. First, the practical result: the contested award is gone and the contract must be redone. Second, the costs ruling: because the withdrawal counts as a disguised annulment, the authority is the losing party and the bidder recovers its procedural indemnity and costs. The judgment also shows how the conclusion can look serene: here the parties agreed at the hearing that the case had become without object, so the Council only had to draw the consequences. What remains is a useful warning for authorities: withdrawing an award after it has been suspended is a valid way to correct a procedure, but it is not a cost-free exit. And a reassurance for bidders: ‘without object’ does not mean ‘empty-handed’.
The lesson
If, as an unsuccessful bidder, you obtain the suspension of an award and the authority then withdraws its decision, do not treat the sequel as a lost cause. Claim your procedural indemnity (here 770 euros) and your costs: the Council sees the withdrawal as a disguised annulment in your favour. If appropriate, agree at the hearing that the case has become without object — that does not bar your right to the costs. Do check that the withdrawal was notified to all bidders with the remedies and time limits, because that is what makes it definitive. As an authority, the lesson is: withdrawing a suspended award to redo the contract is legitimate, but you bear the costs as the losing party. The intervening beneficiary pays only its own intervention fee.
Ask yourself
Do you realise that an award withdrawn by the authority renders your action without object, yet leaves you, as the prevailing party, able to recover your procedural indemnity and costs? Do you know that agreeing at the hearing that the case has become without object does not bar your right to those costs? Have you checked whether the withdrawal was notified to all bidders stating the remedies, forms and time limits, so that it is definitive? And as an authority: do you know that withdrawing a suspended award leaves you, even without a ruling on the merits, bearing the 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 →