The SWDE withdraws the award of its grounds-maintenance contract: no ruling on the merits for Krinkels, but a 700-euro procedural indemnity
After the Société wallonne des eaux itself withdrew its decision of 11 March 2022 awarding two lots of grounds maintenance (together over 10.5 million euros across eight years) to Petrisot and Laurenty, the Council of State found that Krinkels’s extreme-urgency application had lost its object — but because the withdrawal counts as a disguised annulment, the SWDE bears the costs and the 700-euro procedural indemnity.
What happened?
On 11 March 2022 the Société wallonne des eaux awarded two lots of a services contract for the maintenance of its grounds, with a theoretical duration of eight years (4 + 2 + 2 years of extensions): lot 1 (Mons region) to Petrisot at 527,606 euros per year excluding VAT, i.e. 4,220,848 euros over the full term, and lot 2 (Charleroi and Walloon Brabant region) to Laurenty Espaces Verts et Balayages at 789,132 euros per year excluding VAT, i.e. 6,313,056 euros. Krinkels applied on 28 March 2022 for suspension under extreme urgency; Laurenty sought leave to intervene on 15 April 2022. Before the hearing scheduled for 21 April 2022, the SWDE withdrew its award decision on 19 April 2022. It notified the withdrawal on 20 April 2022 by registered letter and email to all bidders concerned, stating the remedies, forms and time limits; the case was postponed sine die. No bidder challenged the withdrawal within the time limit, so it was definitive when the case returned on 23 November 2022. The Council of State could only find that there was nothing left to decide. On costs it applied its settled case law: the disappearance of the contested act through withdrawal is a substitute for an annulment, so the SWDE counts as the losing party within the meaning of article 30/1 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State. As the SWDE put forward nothing that could justify a reduction, the Council awarded Krinkels the claimed procedural indemnity of 700 euros, plus the roll fee of 200 euros and the contribution of 22 euros. Laurenty bears only the 150-euro fee attached to its intervention.
Why does this matter?
This judgment adds no new rule of law, but it shows the withdrawal mechanism as a case-ender in its purest form — and that is precisely why it is useful. An extreme-urgency application against an award worth over ten million euros brought the authority to its senses within three weeks: the SWDE withdrew its decision two days before the scheduled hearing. For Krinkels that meant no ruling on the merits, but the practical result that the award was off the table. The costs ruling then follows a fixed pattern: the withdrawal counts as a disguised annulment, the authority loses, and the applicant recovers its procedural indemnity — here the then-applicable basic amount of 700 euros, awarded in full because the SWDE did not even attempt to argue for a reduction. The judgment also underlines the importance of properly notifying the withdrawal: only because all bidders were written to with the remedies stated, and nobody responded within the time limit, did the withdrawal become definitive so that the Council could close the case. Anyone reading the more recent judgments nos. 266.679 and 266.680 of 13 May 2026 sees the same pattern: this is settled case law that both bidders and authorities can rely on.
The lesson
For bidders: an extreme-urgency procedure can achieve its purpose before a single plea is examined on the merits — the threat of a suspension is sometimes enough to make the authority withdraw. So always expressly claim the costs and the procedural indemnity, because upon withdrawal you are the prevailing party. For authorities: withdrawing an award when a challenge has prospects is often wiser than litigating, but count the applicant’s costs as the price tag. Notification is no formality: write to all bidders concerned, state the remedies, forms and time limits, and let the appeal period expire — only then is the withdrawal definitive and the dispute truly over. And if you want to contest the amount of the procedural indemnity, do so in time and with reasons: a party that puts forward nothing pays the claimed amount in full.
Ask yourself
Do you routinely claim the procedural indemnity and other costs in your extreme-urgency application, so that a withdrawal does not leave you empty-handed? Do you know that an authority withdrawing its award counts as the losing party, even though no plea was examined? As an authority, do you notify the withdrawal to all bidders, stating the remedies and time limits? And if you consider the claimed procedural indemnity too high, do you put forward concrete elements in time to have it reduced?
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 →