Suspension application under extreme urgency by consortium against discontinuation of sale-with-development-obligation for Sinbad site in Sint-Niklaas rejected – discontinuation due to economic infeasibility and need to amend specifications adequately reasoned under Article 85 of the 2016 Act; complaint about compensation condition inadmissible due to material error in contested decision
The Council of State rejected the suspension application under extreme urgency by a consortium of four companies against the decision of the Sint-Niklaas mayor and aldermen to discontinue the procurement procedure for the sale with development obligation of the Sinbad site, because the first part of the single ground (breach of duty to state reasons) was not serious — the discontinuation was adequately reasoned under Article 85 of the 2016 Act, as the administrative file showed that participating parties had repeatedly indicated during the procedure that the conditions were economically infeasible and the need to amend the specifications constituted an acceptable reason — and the second part (regarding the €7,500 compensation linked to a condition not to participate in the new procedure) was entirely inadmissible, inter alia because the condition was a material error acknowledged by the respondent; costs were nevertheless charged to the respondent because the correct reading of the contested decision could only be established from documents in the administrative file not previously available to the applicants.
What happened?
The City of Sint-Niklaas tendered a works contract for the sale with development obligation of the Sinbad site (Parklaan 117), involving the redevelopment of a key city entrance with a landmark building, public works, and social housing, through a competitive procedure with negotiation. Three candidates were selected; all submitted preliminary proposals. However, only two submitted first offers — the third candidate withdrew citing economic infeasibility. During the procedure, both remaining tenderers indicated that the conditions in the specifications were economically challenging. On 25 August 2025, the college of mayor and aldermen decided to discontinue the procedure under Article 85 of the 2016 Act, reasoning that the fundamental changes requested by the firms would constitute a material modification of the contract incompatible with the competition principle. A compensation of €7,500 was offered to each tenderer (instead of €15,000 foreseen for a complete offer). The decision's reasoning erroneously included a condition that tenderers not participate in the new procedure — acknowledged by the respondent as a material error not present in the operative part. The Council held the discontinuation was adequately reasoned: the authority has discretionary power under Article 85, and the need to amend specifications based on market feedback is an acceptable reason. The second part of the ground was inadmissible as the complaint was unclear and the contested condition was a material error. Costs were charged to the respondent because the correct reading required documents not previously available to the applicants.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the contracting authority's discretionary power to discontinue a procurement procedure under Article 85 of the 2016 Act. The need to amend specifications when market conditions and tenderer feedback indicate economic infeasibility is an acceptable reason. The authority need not specify which concrete amendments will be made. A material error in the reasoning (an unlawful condition not present in the operative part) can be acknowledged based on the administrative file, removing the applicant's standing on that point.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, a discontinuation decision must be based on sound reasons but need not already specify concrete amendments. Signals from multiple participants about economic infeasibility constitute a valid reason. Check the decision carefully for material errors before notification. As a tenderer, the fact that your own offer remains feasible does not prevent the authority from discontinuing based on the overall picture.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: is your discontinuation decision based on sound reasons? Are these adequately stated? Have you checked for material errors before notification? As a tenderer: is the discontinuation reasoned on acceptable grounds? Are there concrete elements in the administrative file supporting the stated reasons?
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 →