Umami Catering withdraws appeal after withdrawal of award decision for meal preparation in reception centres
Withdrawal acknowledged: after the Council of State previously ordered suspension of the irregularity declaration of Umami's offers for meal preparation in reception centres, and the minister withdrew and retook the decisions, Umami withdrew its annulment appeals; costs are charged to the Belgian State.
What happened?
The Federal Public Service Home Affairs tendered on behalf of Fedasil a public service contract for the preparation, packaging, delivery and distribution of meals and waste recovery in centres for the reception and temporary housing of international protection applicants. The contract comprised two lots. On 1 March 2023, the Minister of Home Affairs declared Umami Catering's offers for lots 1 and 2 substantially irregular and awarded both lots to Aramark. Umami sought suspension under extreme urgency. By ruling no. 256,324 of 21 April 2023, the Council of State joined both cases and ordered suspension of the contested decisions. On the same day as filing the annulment appeals — 28 April 2023 — the minister adopted two new decisions: withdrawing the 1 March 2023 decisions, again declaring the offers substantially irregular and again awarding to Aramark. Umami also challenged these new decisions, but by ruling no. 256,766 of 13 June 2023, the Council rejected these claims. Umami did not file annulment appeals against the 28 April 2023 decisions. On 1 August 2023, Umami withdrew its annulment appeals and damages claims against the meanwhile withdrawn 1 March 2023 decisions. The Council acknowledged the withdrawal and charged costs to the Belgian State. The procedural compensation for the annulment appeals was reduced to half the base amount (2 × EUR 385) due to substantial overlap with the suspension applications and the absence of a reply brief. Total procedural compensation amounted to EUR 2,310 (2 × EUR 770 for suspension procedures + 2 × EUR 385 for annulment appeals).
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates the procedural course and cost consequences when a contracting authority, after losing a suspension procedure, withdraws its decision and retakes it on the same grounds. The authority bears costs of both the suspension procedure and the annulment appeals. Additionally, it shows that the Council of State can reduce procedural compensation for annulment appeals to half the base amount when the application substantially overlaps with the suspension application and proceedings were limited.
The lesson
As contracting authority: when you retake the same decision after losing a suspension procedure, you bear not only the original procedure's costs but risk a new series of appeals. Thoroughly evaluate whether retaking on the same grounds is worthwhile. As tenderer: a successful suspension claim strengthens your position, but carefully consider whether further proceedings outweigh costs when the authority withdraws and retakes its decision.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, have I thoroughly evaluated why my first decision was suspended before retaking on the same grounds? As tenderer, am I aware of the cost-benefit analysis of further proceedings after the authority withdraws its decision?
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 →