Geel halts the ditch-sludge tender, then backs down as soon as C. NV goes to the Council of State: the termination goes, the withdrawn award stays
When C. NV challenged, under extreme urgency, the decision of the city of Geel to terminate the award procedure for the framework agreement ‘storage and processing of ditch sludge and soil’, the city withdrew exactly that part ten days later — while expressly leaving in place the withdrawal of the earlier award decision — after which the Council of State declared both the urgent request and the annulment action without object and ordered the city to pay the costs.
What happened?
The city of Geel was awarding a framework agreement for the storage and processing of ditch sludge and soil, on the basis of specifications 2025-437. On 26 May 2026 the board of mayor and aldermen adopted a reasoned award decision. Less than a month later, on 22 June 2026, the board reversed course: it withdrew that award decision and at the same time decided to terminate the award procedure under article 85 of the Public Procurement Act, in order to ‘re-tender the file at a later date’. On 7 July 2026 C. NV lodged a single application for suspension under extreme urgency and for annulment of the decision of 22 June — but only ‘insofar as’ it decided to terminate the procedure and re-tender later. The withdrawal of the award decision fell outside its action. On 8 July the hearing was first set for 28 July 2026. Before that date, on 17 July 2026, the board decided on a ‘partial withdrawal’ of its decision of 22 June, ‘solely insofar as that decision relates to the decision to terminate the award procedure’. The decision was expressly left ‘unaffected’ as regards the withdrawal of the award decision of 26 May 2026. At the hearing of 2 September 2026, counsel Frederik Niesten for C. NV and counsel Abdellatif Haddouchi for the city were heard; first auditor Thomas Maes gave a concurring opinion. In his judgment of 10 September 2026, chamber president Geert Debersaques finds that the urgent request has become without object, and therefore inadmissible, because of the withdrawal. Since suspension and annulment had been sought in a single application, the Council applies article 30, § 5, of the coordinated laws: the annulment action shares the same fate and is likewise dismissed. The city of Geel bears the costs of the urgent request: a roll fee of 200 euros, a contribution of 26 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros to C. NV.
Why does this matter?
The judgment is procedural, but the facts behind it are instructive. A contracting authority that withdraws an award faces a choice: repair the procedure and take a new award decision, or abandon the award altogether under article 85 of the Public Procurement Act. Geel first did the latter and, as soon as the termination was challenged, opted for the former after all. C. NV had moreover drawn the boundaries of its action sharply: it attacked only the termination, not the withdrawal of the award. That is precisely the part the city withdrew. The result is a file in which the procedure is no longer terminated, while the original award decision of 26 May 2026 remains withdrawn. The judgment also confirms two settled lines. A withdrawal of the contested act renders the urgent request without object. And whoever seeks suspension and annulment in a single application sees the annulment action follow the urgent request under article 30, § 5. For the costs this makes little difference: the city pays the roll fee, the contribution and the procedural indemnity.
The lesson
For bidders: look closely at which part of a decision harms you, and confine your action to it. Whoever challenges only a termination can provoke a targeted withdrawal that restarts the procedure, without the rest of the decision being called into question. Do bear in mind that after a withdrawal you get no ruling on the merits, and that the annulment action in a single application is dismissed along with it. Follow up the next steps in the procedure: a new award decision is a new, challengeable act. For contracting authorities: a termination under article 85 is a far-reaching decision that must be soundly reasoned. If you doubt whether it would survive urgent review, you are better off repairing the procedure straight away than waiting for the hearing — otherwise the costs follow anyway.
Ask yourself
As a bidder, have you determined which part of a combined decision (withdrawal of the award, termination of the procedure) actually harms you, and confined your action to it? Do you know that the annulment action in a single application is dismissed along with the urgent request when the latter becomes without object? Are you following what the contracting authority does after a withdrawal, so that you can challenge a new award decision in time? As a contracting authority: can your decision to abandon the award under article 85 withstand review by the Council of State, or is repairing the procedure the safer course?
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 →