Bedpan washers without a sequel: Meiko lets the thirty-day period lapse after a lost urgency round and the case expires
After the Council of State rejected Meiko’s urgency application against the award of AZ Vesalius’s bedpan washers to Arjohuntleigh, Meiko did not request the continuation of its annulment action within thirty days, so the Council recorded the abandonment of the proceedings and Meiko bore the costs of 175 euros.
What happened?
On 14 February 2012 the Algemeen Ziekenhuis Vesalius awarded the contract for the supply, installation and maintenance of bedpan washers (specifications 2011/029 of the Technical Department) to Arjohuntleigh. Meiko BVBA, a competitor on the medical washing equipment market, filed an annulment action on 1 March 2012 and also sought suspension under extreme urgency. That application was rejected by judgment no. 218.771 of 29 March 2012, served on Meiko on 3 April 2012. From then the thirty-day period ran to request the continuation of the proceedings (article 17, § 4ter of the coordinated laws). Meiko filed no request, not even after the registry’s notification of 25 May 2012, and did not ask to be heard. The Council recorded the presumption of abandonment and ordered Meiko to pay the costs of the urgency application, assessed at 175 euros. Whether the award to Arjohuntleigh was lawful was never examined on the merits.
Why does this matter?
Together with judgment no. 220.663 of the same day, this case shows how systematically the Council of State applies the presumption of abandonment: big or small, construction consortium or SME supplier, whoever fails to request continuation after a rejected suspension application sees their annulment action end by operation of law. For a smaller supplier like Meiko this is often a rational cost-benefit trade-off — after a lost urgency round the odds of a meaningful annulment are limited while the contract simply proceeds. But the judgment is a reminder that this outcome is formally recorded with a costs order, and that anyone in doubt should take the cheap intermediate step of a continuation request to keep their options open.
The lesson
For tenderers: the request for continuation is a simple formality that keeps your annulment action alive — when in doubt, just file it and decide later. Whoever omits it accepts the end of the proceedings and the costs. For authorities and successful tenderers: thirty days after service of a rejection judgment you know definitively whether the litigation continues.
Ask yourself
Is the thirty-day period for the continuation request in your case-tracking from the day a rejection judgment is served? Do you make the continue-or-stop decision consciously, knowing that a continuation request costs little but keeps your options open? And do you know that the abandonment also entails a costs order?
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 →