Tienen withdraws its verge-mowing award thirteen days after the urgent request: the city pays for the proceedings, the beneficiary for its intervention
On 17 June 2026 T. BV sought suspension under extreme urgency of the city of Tienen’s award to K. NV of a framework agreement for mowing verges; the city withdrew that award on 30 June, before the first scheduled hearing, after which the Council of State declared the request without object, nevertheless admitted K.’s intervention and ordered the city to pay the costs.
What happened?
On 2 June 2026 the city of Tienen awarded the public contract ‘Framework agreement for mowing verges and removing verge cuttings’. On 17 June 2026 T. BV sought suspension under extreme urgency of that award decision, of the related reasoned award decision and of the evaluation report on which it was based. K. NV, which benefited from the award, intervened in the proceedings. By order of 18 June 2026 the hearing was first set for 3 July 2026. It never came to that: on 30 June 2026 the city withdrew the contested award decision. The case was eventually heard on 2 September 2026, when counsel Ellen Vanderweyden for T. BV and counsel Johan Vanstipelen for the city were heard; first auditor Thomas Maes gave a concurring opinion. In his judgment of 10 September 2026, chamber president Geert Debersaques first admits K. NV’s request to intervene: it benefits from the contested decision and has an interest in the request being rejected. He then finds that the urgent request has become ‘entirely without object’ because of the withdrawal, and therefore inadmissible, and rejects it. The city of Tienen bears the costs of the request: a roll fee of 200 euros, a contribution of 26 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros to T. BV. K. NV bears the costs of its intervention, set at 150 euros.
Why does this matter?
The judgment contains no review of the award on the merits, but it reflects a pattern that keeps recurring in the recent case law of the XIVth chamber: the contracting authority withdraws its decision shortly after an urgent request is lodged, before the hearing. Here that happened within thirteen days. For the applicant this means a quick practical win — the award to its competitor is gone — and a costs ruling in its favour. The position of the beneficiary is striking: its intervention is admitted even though the case loses its object, but the 150-euro intervention fee stays at its own expense. A beneficiary that intervenes to defend ‘its’ award thus runs the risk that the authority pulls the rug from under its feet.
The lesson
For bidders: a well-founded urgent request may be enough to persuade the authority to withdraw, before any judge rules. Bear in mind that you then get no ruling on the merits, and follow what happens to the contract: a new award decision can be challenged again. For beneficiaries: intervening makes sense to defend your award, but you do not decide the fate of the decision — the authority can withdraw it, and then you pay your intervention fee yourself. For contracting authorities: if, after an urgent request, you find that your award will not stand, withdrawing quickly is sensible, but the roll fee, contribution and procedural indemnity follow anyway.
Ask yourself
As a bidder, do you know that a withdrawal before the hearing renders your request without object, yet earns you the procedural indemnity? Are you following what the authority does with the contract after the withdrawal, so that you can challenge a new award decision in time? As a beneficiary: do you realise that if the authority withdraws, you bear the costs of your intervention yourself? As a contracting authority: after an urgent request, have you critically reviewed your award decision and evaluation report before the hearing takes place?
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 →