ORES withdraws a suspended selection for the aerial-platform framework agreement and relaunches it: Comet’s action loses its object, ORES bears the costs
After the Council of State had suspended, under extreme urgency, the decision not to select Comet Belgium for the framework agreement for the supply and maintenance of aerial work platforms, ORES Assets withdrew that decision and relaunched the contract; because all candidates — Comet included — then filed a fresh request to participate without challenging the withdrawal, that withdrawal became definitive, the annulment action lost its object, and ORES, as the party disguisedly defeated, had to bear the 770-euro procedural indemnity and the costs.
What happened?
ORES Assets organised a framework agreement for the supply of a utility vehicle equipped with a mobile personnel-lifting platform (aerial work platform), including the maintenance of the whole. By a decision of 29 August 2025, ORES did not select Comet Belgium and selected other candidates to submit an offer; the extract was notified to Comet on 1 September 2025. Comet sought suspension under extreme urgency, and by judgment no. 264.817 of 12 November 2025 the Council of State suspended the execution of the non-selection decision, rejected the application for the remainder, maintained the confidentiality of pieces A to E of the administrative file and reserved the costs. ORES then filed no request to continue the proceedings. Under article 17, § 9, of the coordinated laws the Council may then annul the suspended act, and since none of the parties asked to be heard, there was in principle ground to annul the contested act. By a decision of 17 December 2025, however, ORES had already withdrawn the suspended decision and renounced the award of the framework agreement; by a decision of the same day it launched a new contract with the same object. The withdrawal decision was communicated to the various candidates by letters of 18 December 2025, stating the remedies and the forms and time limits to be observed, and indicating that they were sent ‘by registered post and email’. Although the Council had not received proof of dispatch of those letters, the withdrawal could be regarded as definitive: all candidates — Comet included — had filed a fresh request to participate in the new contract, without reservation and without challenging the withdrawal decision, of which they necessarily had knowledge. The withdrawal deprived the action of its object, so there was no longer any need to rule and the suspension ordered by judgment no. 264.817 could be lifted. Comet claimed a procedural indemnity of 770 euros. The Council held that the disappearance of the contested act through the withdrawal is a form of disguised annulment, so ORES counts as the losing party and Comet as the prevailing party, within the meaning of article 30/1. It awarded the 770-euro indemnity and placed the other costs — the roll fee of 200 euros and the contribution of 26 euros — on ORES. The judgment was delivered on 29 April 2026 by the VIth chamber (Florence Piret, councillor of State, acting president; Nathalie Roba, registrar).
Why does this matter?
This judgment refines the withdrawal scenario on two points. First, the procedural overlap: after a suspension, the Council can automatically annul the suspended act where the authority does not ask to continue (article 17, § 9). ORES forestalled that outcome by withdrawing itself and immediately launching a new contract with the same object. The result is the same — the contested decision disappears — but through the route of withdrawal rather than annulment, with the same cost consequences for the authority. The second and most practically important point concerns when a withdrawal is ‘definitive’. Normally the Council checks whether it was notified to all bidders with the remedies and whether no one challenges it in time. Here the proof of dispatch was missing, but the Council inferred definitiveness from the candidates’ conduct: by filing a fresh request to participate without reservation, they de facto accepted the withdrawal and the relaunch. That shows definitiveness can flow not only from notification but also from the parties’ procedural posture. For the bidder the conclusion remains reassuring: ‘without object’ after an obtained suspension does not mean ‘empty-handed’ — it recovers its procedural indemnity and costs, and the contract is redone.
The lesson
If, as a candidate or bidder, you obtain the suspension of a selection or award decision and the authority then withdraws it to relaunch the contract, do not treat the sequel as a lost cause. Claim your procedural indemnity (here 770 euros) and your costs: the Council sees the withdrawal as a disguised annulment in your favour. Be aware, though, that your own procedural posture counts: if you file a fresh request to participate in the relaunched contract without reservation, you help confirm the definitive character of the withdrawal — consider an express reservation if you still wish to contest the old decision on the merits. As an authority, this judgment offers a useful roadmap: after a suspension you may, instead of awaiting the automatic annulment of article 17, § 9, withdraw and relaunch yourself — but you bear the costs and the procedural indemnity, and you had best notify the withdrawal to all candidates while keeping the proof of dispatch.
Ask yourself
Do you know that, absent a request to continue after a suspension, the Council of State can automatically annul the suspended act under article 17, § 9? Do you realise that a withdrawal can be deemed definitive not only through notification but also because the candidates participate in the relaunched contract without reservation? If you are a bidder who still wishes to preserve complaints against the old decision, have you considered making an express reservation when filing your new request to participate? As an authority: do you keep the proof of dispatch of the withdrawal, and do you know that withdrawing and relaunching yourself leaves you bearing the roll fees, the contribution and the procedural indemnity?
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 →