Application for suspension under extreme urgency inadmissible after withdrawal of OSIRIS platform award decision – retroactive effect of withdrawal removes lésion, admissibility condition under Article 14 of the 2013 Act no longer met
The Council of State rejected as inadmissible the application for suspension under extreme urgency by SRL GATE-16 against the award of a service contract for the OSIRIS platform by the Brussels-Capital Region to SRL AMA European Consulting, because the Region had withdrawn the award decision on 15 December 2025 with retroactive effect, meaning the applicant was no longer harmed or at risk of being harmed within the meaning of Article 14 of the Act of 17 June 2013, and consequently one of the two admissibility conditions was no longer met.
What happened?
The Brussels-Capital Region awarded a service contract for project management assistance and operation of the OSIRIS platform to SRL AMA European Consulting for €1,312,583.80 including VAT. SRL GATE-16 filed for suspension under extreme urgency and annulment on 18 November 2025. On 26 November 2025, the respondent informed the Council of the probable withdrawal of the contested decision; the case was adjourned sine die. On 15 December 2025, the respondent withdrew the award decision. At the hearing on 27 January 2026, both parties referred to the wisdom of the Council regarding the impact of the withdrawal on admissibility. The Council held that the withdrawal operated retroactively to the date of the contested decision, meaning that even if the alleged violations were proven, they had neither harmed nor risked harming the applicant. Since one of the two admissibility conditions under Article 14 was no longer met, the application was declared inadmissible. Costs were reserved.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the distinction between the classic approach under Article 30 §5 of the coordinated laws (loss of object upon withdrawal) and the specific admissibility test under Article 14 of the 2013 Act in public procurement. The Council preferred the latter: the retroactive withdrawal removes the lésion, meaning one admissibility condition is no longer met. The outcome is the same — rejection — but the legal basis differs, which affects the cost regime: costs are reserved (pending the annulment appeal) rather than charged to the respondent.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, withdrawing the award decision during suspension proceedings makes the application inadmissible due to the retroactive removal of lésion, but the annulment appeal continues — costs are reserved, not definitively allocated. As an applicant, be aware that withdrawal can render your suspension application inadmissible even if your grievance was valid.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: after withdrawing the award decision, have you considered the still-pending annulment appeal? Is the withdrawal genuinely motivated by illegality or merely defensive? As an applicant: is your suspension application still admissible after withdrawal? Should you refocus on the annulment appeal?
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 →