Suspension request rejected: STIB fails to demonstrate urgency to prevent transmission of procurement documents to CADA — purely hypothetical fears of enforcement and disclosure
The suspension request against CADA's interlocutory decision ordering STIB to transmit documents relating to a software services contract (MaaS) is rejected — STIB fails to concretely demonstrate urgency: fears of enforcement measures by CADA are purely hypothetical, and transmitting documents to CADA does not mean they will be disclosed to the access requester (a competitor), as CADA must still examine their confidential nature.
What happened?
In July 2023, a Flowbird employee (competitor in MaaS) requested access to procurement documents from STIB regarding a software programming and consulting services contract. STIB failed to respond in time. The requester turned to CADA Brussels, which ordered STIB to transmit the documents. STIB partially complied but refused to transmit offers and evaluations, invoking abuse and trade secrets. CADA issued an interlocutory decision finding the request neither manifestly abusive nor too vague, ordering transmission. STIB sought suspension. The Council of State rejected: fears of CADA enforcement are hypothetical — nothing indicates CADA intends to exercise coercive powers. Transmitting documents to CADA is not disclosure to the requester: CADA must still assess confidentiality. Urgency not established.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that urgency for suspending a CADA decision requires concrete and imminent disadvantages, not hypothetical fears. The distinction between transmitting documents to CADA (for confidentiality review) and disclosing them to the access requester is crucial.
The lesson
As contracting authority facing access requests for procurement documents: distinguish between the different stages of the CADA procedure. Transmission to CADA for confidentiality review is not disclosure. Support suspension requests with concrete and imminent disadvantages. Respond to access requests within deadlines.
Ask yourself
Did I respond in time to the initial access request? Does my urgency argument rest on concrete demonstrated disadvantages or merely hypothetical fears?
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 →