Archiving-and-digitisation contract: no annulment action follows the extreme-urgency suspension, so the Council lifts it — the Belgian State bears the costs, the intervener its own fee
The Council of State had suspended, under extreme urgency, the award to third parties of the framework agreement for the archiving and digitisation of paper files (CAD/2024/ARCHIEF); when the unsuccessful bidder Y. then filed no application for annulment, the Council had to lift the suspension under article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph, of its coordinated laws, ordering the Belgian State to pay the costs of the suspension application while the intervening party bore only its 150-euro intervention fee.
What happened?
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health decided to award to third parties the contract for the conclusion of the ‘framework agreement on the archiving and digitisation of paper files’ (CAD/2024/ARCHIEF). Y., assisted by counsel Barteld Schutyser and Gauthier Vlassenbroeck, sought on 18 November 2025 the suspension of the execution of that decision under extreme urgency. By judgment no. 265.208 of 16 December 2025 the Council of State granted the request: it suspended the contested decision and admitted M.’s intervention. Then nothing happened. Article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph, of the coordinated laws on the Council of State requires the applicant, after an extreme-urgency suspension, still to file an application for annulment; if it does not, the Council must lift the suspension it has ordered. Y. filed no annulment action. The Council noted this and lifted the suspension ordered by judgment no. 265.208. On costs, it held that the Belgian State, as the defending party, was ordered to pay the costs of the suspension application: a roll fee of 200 euros, a contribution of 26 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros, owed to Y. The intervening party M. was ordered to pay the costs of its intervention, set at a roll fee of 150 euros. The case was dealt with without a public hearing and taken under advisement on 22 April 2026.
Why does this matter?
This judgment is the mirror image of an extreme-urgency victory that is not pursued. The bidder had already cleared the hardest hurdle — the extreme-urgency suspension, with its demanding admissibility and urgency conditions — but then let the time limit for the annulment action lapse. The consequence is inexorable: article 17, § 8, fourth paragraph, compels the Council to lift the suspension, without any new ruling on the merits. Yet the bidder does not end empty-handed. Because it obtained the suspension, the Belgian State remains the losing party and bears the procedural indemnity and the costs; the beneficiary that had intervened pays only the fee attached to its intervention. The judgment also illustrates the three-way cost split that recurs in such cases: the applicant recovers, the authority pays, and the intervening party bears its own intervention fee. The practical message is twofold: watch the time limit for the annulment action, and know that a lifted suspension does not reverse the costs balance.
The lesson
If, as a bidder, you obtain a suspension under extreme urgency, plan the sequel at once: file an application for annulment within the time limit if you want the award definitively off the table. Let that time limit pass and the Council lifts the suspension automatically — an obligation, not a defeat on the merits. Your procedural indemnity nonetheless stands: because you won the suspension, the authority remains the losing party. As an authority, this judgment shows that a suspended award makes you the losing party on costs, even if the bidder does not pursue the annulment action. And as the intervening beneficiary, bear in mind that you carry the 150-euro intervention fee in any event, whatever the outcome.
Ask yourself
After your extreme-urgency suspension, have you diaried the time limit for the annulment action, so the suspension is not lifted automatically? Do you know that lifting the suspension is a legal obligation for the Council and does not involve a fresh ruling on the merits? Do you realise that, despite the lifting, you recover your 770-euro procedural indemnity as the prevailing party? As an intervening beneficiary: do you account for the fact that you bear the 150-euro intervention fee in any event?
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 →