The Region withdraws the suspended radio-dispatching contract: the Council finds the action without object — but makes the Region pay
After the Council of State had already suspended, under extreme urgency, the award of the ‘24/7 operation of the Brussels Mobility radio dispatching’ contract to Lombardi Belgium (2,013,950.18 euros incl. VAT), the Brussels-Capital Region withdrew that award decision; the annulment action of Sophia Group thereby lost its object, but because a withdrawal amounts to a disguised annulment the Region counts as the losing party and must bear the procedural indemnity and the costs.
What happened?
By a decision of 15 July 2025, approved on 18 July 2025, the Brussels-Capital Region awarded the public services contract ‘24/7 operation of the Brussels Mobility radio dispatching’ to Lombardi Belgium for 2,013,950.18 euros including VAT. Sophia Group, an unsuccessful bidder, brought an action and sought suspension under extreme urgency. By judgment no. 264.175 of 16 September 2025 the Council of State admitted Lombardi Belgium’s intervention and suspended the execution of the award decision under extreme urgency. The case then took a turn that made the substantive debate unnecessary. On 14 November 2025 the Region itself withdrew the contested award. It notified that withdrawal to all bidders by email and registered letter of 18 November 2025, stating the available remedies and the forms and time limits to be observed. No bidder sought annulment of the withdrawal decision within the prescribed time limit. The Council inferred from this that the withdrawal had become definitive, so that the action had lost its object; the conclusions of the auditor’s report could be followed. On costs, the Council held that the disappearance of the contested act as a result of the withdrawal is a form of disguised annulment (‘succédané d’une annulation contentieuse’): within the meaning of article 30/1 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State, the defending party must then be regarded as the losing party and the applicant as the party that has prevailed. The Council accordingly decided that there was no longer any need to rule on the action itself, and placed the costs on the Region: the roll fee of 400 euros, the contributions of 52 euros and the procedural indemnity of 770 euros awarded to Sophia Group. The intervening party, Lombardi Belgium, bears only the 150-euro fee attached to its intervention.
Why does this matter?
This judgment shows how decisive the extreme-urgency suspension is in procurement litigation, and how an unsuccessful bidder may count an apparent anticlimax — an action declared ‘without object’ — as a victory all the same. Whoever obtains the suspension of an award often confronts the authority with a choice: keep fighting, or withdraw its own decision and redo the procedure. If the authority opts for withdrawal, the substantive debate falls away and the Council no longer rules on the merits. That feels like an undecided result, but legally it is not: the Council treats the withdrawal as a disguised annulment, so that the withdrawing authority is the losing party and the applicant is entitled to its procedural indemnity and costs. Two practical points stand out. First, the withdrawal only becomes definitive — and the case only truly closed — once no one challenges it within the time limit; the Council expressly verifies this. Second, the intervening beneficiary does not bear the full costs, but only its own intervention fee. For the authority, the message is that withdrawing is a legitimate way out — the procedure can be redone — but that this way out carries the cost consequences of a loss.
The lesson
As an unsuccessful bidder, challenge the award through the extreme-urgency suspension: that is the lever. If you obtain the suspension and the authority then withdraws its decision, do not abandon the action assuming there is nothing left to gain. Expressly claim your procedural indemnity (here 770 euros) and your costs, because the Council treats the withdrawal as a disguised annulment in your favour. Also check that the withdrawal was properly notified to all bidders, with the remedies and time limits — that is what makes it definitive. As the authority, the mirror message is: withdrawing a contested award is a valid way to correct a procedural error and redo the contract, but expect to bear the costs and the procedural indemnity as the losing party, even without a ruling on the merits. The intervening beneficiary pays only its own intervention fee.
Ask yourself
After a suspended award, have you correctly assessed what a withdrawal by the authority means for you — namely that your action becomes without object, but that as the prevailing party you can recover your procedural indemnity and costs? Do you know that the withdrawal only becomes definitive once no one challenges it within the time limit, and that the authority must notify the bidders of it stating the remedies, forms and time limits? And as an authority: do you realise that withdrawing a contested award leaves you, despite the absence of a ruling on the merits, bearing the costs and the procedural indemnity as the losing party, while the intervening beneficiary bears only its own intervention fee?
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 →