Application moot after withdrawal of award decision: IVBO withdraws award of two small refuse collection vehicles before hearing – costs charged to IVBO
The Council of State rejected the application for suspension under extreme urgency by BV M. against IVBO as moot, after IVBO withdrew the contested award decision of 27 August 2025 for the supply of two small refuse collection vehicles on 25 September 2025 — before the hearing — with the Council holding that the withdrawal also rendered moot the implicit decision not to award to BV M., and ordering IVBO to bear the costs.
What happened?
BV M. filed an application for suspension under extreme urgency on 11 September 2025 against IVBO (Intermunicipal Cooperation Association for Waste Removal and Processing in Bruges and Surroundings). The application concerned IVBO's board decision of 27 August 2025 awarding a public contract for the supply of two small refuse collection vehicles to two other tenderers and not to BV M. After the hearing was initially set for 1 October 2025, IVBO withdrew the contested award decision on 25 September 2025. The Council of State found that the application had become entirely moot due to this withdrawal, including the requested suspension of the implicit decision not to award to BV M. The fact that the withdrawal decision also stated agreement in principle to draft new specifications with different conditions, after examining the possibility of joining an existing framework agreement, did not affect this finding. The application was rejected. IVBO was ordered to bear the costs, assessed at a court fee of €200, a contribution of €26, and a procedural indemnity of €770 payable to BV M.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates two practical points. First, when the contracting authority withdraws the contested award decision before the hearing, the application for suspension under extreme urgency becomes entirely moot — including the implicit decision not to award to the applicant. Second, although the application is rejected (as moot), the respondent bears the costs, meaning the tenderer who filed the application recovers costs. This creates an incentive: the tenderer is not financially penalised when the authority corrects its mistake, and the authority bears the financial consequences of its original error.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, if you realise after a suspension application that the award decision is problematic, withdraw it promptly — the application becomes moot, but you bear the costs. As a tenderer, filing quickly may prompt the authority to withdraw before the hearing, effectively achieving your goal while recovering costs.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: is the contested decision still in force or has it been withdrawn? If withdrawn, your application may be moot. Also check whether the withdrawal decision itself contains new challengeable elements. As a contracting authority: considering withdrawal after an application? Be aware you will bear the costs.
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 →