Soignies withdraws the appointment of its bailiff six days before the hearing: Unilex’s application is inadmissible, but the city pays
Unilex sought suspension under extreme urgency of the City of Soignies’s award to Étude AKERO’IA of a contract for recovering sums owed to the city; because the city withdrew that award with retroactive effect on 10 September 2026, Unilex could no longer have been harmed and the Council of State declares the application inadmissible — but the city bears all the costs, including EUR 770 in procedural indemnity.
What happened?
On 30 July 2026 the board of mayor and aldermen of the City of Soignies (Zinnik) awarded Étude AKERO’IA a public services contract for the ‘appointment of a bailiff to recover sums owed to the City of Soignies’ (specifications no. 2025/3P/1742). Unilex, which had also submitted a tender, applied on 1 September 2026 for suspension of that decision under the extreme-urgency procedure. By order of 2 September 2026 the case was set down for hearing on 16 September 2026. It never got to the merits: on 10 September 2026 the city withdrew the contested award. The first auditor then asked Unilex whether its application still met the conditions of Article 15 of the Law of 17 June 2013, which refers to Article 14: an action is open to anyone who has or had an interest in obtaining the contract and who has been or risks being harmed by the alleged infringement. At the hearing Unilex deferred to the Council’s wisdom. The acting President of the VIth Chamber, sitting in summary proceedings, held that the withdrawal takes effect retroactively from the date on which the award decision was adopted. As a result, the alleged infringements — assuming they existed — neither harmed Unilex nor risked doing so. One of the two admissibility conditions of Article 14 was therefore not met, and the application was declared inadmissible and dismissed. Absent any objection, the Council kept the tender Unilex had filed confidentially (exhibit A) confidential at this stage. On costs the judgment was brief: ‘because of the withdrawal of the contested act’, Unilex was granted the EUR 770 procedural indemnity it had requested, and for the same reason the city also bore the EUR 200 roll fee and the EUR 26 contribution. Immediate enforcement of the judgment was ordered.
Why does this matter?
When a contracting authority withdraws a contested award, proceedings usually end with a finding that the action has ‘become devoid of purpose’. This judgment takes a different legal route to the same practical outcome. The Council looks at the admissibility condition of the Law of 17 June 2013: the applicant must have been harmed or be at risk of harm. Because the withdrawal is retroactive, there never was an award capable of harming Unilex, so the application for suspension is inadmissible. Formally the operative part says ‘dismissed’, but that is no defeat for the bidder: the Council expressly links the costs to the withdrawal and places them entirely on the city. For bidders that is the key point: inadmissibility caused by the authority’s own conduct does not cost you your procedural indemnity. For contracting authorities it is a clear signal that a swift withdrawal just before the hearing ends the case but does not make the bill disappear. The timing is also striking: the application was filed on 1 September and the withdrawal came before the hearing of 16 September — the extreme-urgency procedure forces authorities into a quick self-assessment of their award.
The lesson
For bidders: if the auditor asks for your position after a withdrawal, you can defer to the Council’s wisdom without losing anything — but expressly claim your procedural indemnity, as Unilex did. File your tender confidentially if you add it to the record; the Council respects that as long as it is not contested. And keep an eye on what the authority does after the withdrawal: a new award decision is a new act, with a new time limit for challenge. For contracting authorities: withdrawing a contested award is a legitimate way to correct a mistake and avoid a ruling on the merits. But if you do so after a bidder has already gone to the Council of State, you bear the roll fee, the contribution and the procedural indemnity. If you doubt the lawfulness of an award, examine it before the standstill period expires, not after the summons.
Ask yourself
As a bidder: after a withdrawal, have I expressly claimed my procedural indemnity and costs? Do I know that inadmissibility resulting from the authority’s withdrawal does not affect my claim to costs? Am I monitoring whether the authority takes a new award decision after the withdrawal, which I can challenge again? Have I filed my tender as a confidential document? As a contracting authority: did I check the lawfulness of my award before extreme-urgency proceedings were brought, and do I realise that a later withdrawal will leave me with the costs?
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 →