Council of State Suspends Brussels Casino Concession Decision
Écrit par Klara Wolf · 2/9/2026
Council of State Suspends Brussels Casino Concession Decision
The City of Brussels awarded a 15-year casino concession valued at approximately €750 million to Napoleon Games after that operator achieved a score of 91.02 points compared with the competitor's 87.74 points, yet Belgium's Council of State has suspended the award because the city omitted a required European filing during the procurement process.
Administrative review began after the runner-up raised questions about compliance with EU procurement directives that apply to large public contracts across member states, and the court determined the missing filing constituted sufficient grounds for interim suspension while the full merits receive further examination.
Procurement Background and Scoring Details
Brussels launched the tender under rules that govern public concessions exceeding certain financial thresholds, which normally require prior notification through the Official Journal of the European Union so that operators from across the single market can participate, and the Council of State found that step had not occurred before the city proceeded to evaluation and selection. Napoleon Games received the higher technical and financial score during the city's internal assessment, yet the absence of the European-level publication created a procedural gap that the administrative court viewed as potentially affecting equal treatment of bidders.
Observers familiar with similar Belgian concession cases note that the Council of State often issues suspensions when documentation shows incomplete transparency steps, and this instance followed the same pattern because the city could not demonstrate the required filing had been made before the award. The 15-year term and roughly €750 million value placed the contract well above the threshold that triggers EU publication obligations, which explains why the court focused on that specific omission rather than re-examining the point difference between the two bidders.
Legal Grounds Cited by the Council of State
The suspension order rests on multiple procedural points, with the missing European filing listed among the primary reasons, and the court also referenced questions about how the city documented and communicated evaluation criteria to participants throughout the tender. Because the filing serves to alert potential cross-border operators, its absence raised the possibility that the field of competitors might have been narrower than required under EU rules, even though the city ultimately received at least two formal bids.
Those who follow administrative litigation in Belgium point out that the Council of State typically grants suspensions when the petitioner shows both a serious argument on the merits and an urgent interest in preserving the status quo, and the challenger satisfied both tests here by highlighting the omitted filing and the immediate commercial impact of the concession moving forward. The decision halts implementation of the contract while the court continues its review, leaving the city and Napoleon Games unable to proceed with licensing or operational preparations until the suspension lifts or a final ruling issues.
Next Steps in the Administrative Process
The Council of State will now examine the full record, including any evidence the city may submit to show that the European filing was completed through an alternative channel or that the omission did not materially affect competition, and a final judgment is expected within several months depending on the volume of submissions and hearing schedules. In the meantime the existing temporary suspension remains in force, which prevents the city from signing the concession agreement or transferring any operational rights to Napoleon Games.
Industry participants tracking the case note that similar suspensions in other Belgian municipalities have sometimes led to re-tendering when procedural flaws proved difficult to cure, while in other instances the original award stood after the court received additional documentation that satisfied EU notification requirements retroactively. The current proceedings therefore center on whether the city can remedy the filing gap without restarting the entire procurement, and the outcome will determine whether the 91.02-to-87.74 scoring result survives judicial scrutiny.
Broader Context of Belgian Casino Concessions
Belgium regulates casino operations through a combination of federal gaming laws and regional licensing procedures, and major urban concessions such as the one in Brussels typically involve long-term agreements that cover both land-based facilities and any associated online or remote gaming rights. The €750 million figure reflects projected gross gaming revenue over the 15-year period rather than an upfront payment, which aligns with standard concession structures used in several other European jurisdictions where operators pay a share of revenue to the granting authority.
Administrative courts in Belgium have handled comparable challenges in recent years, and the Council of State's emphasis on EU filing compliance reflects the country's obligations under single-market procurement rules that apply uniformly from Lisbon to Warsaw. Because the Brussels tender exceeded the monetary threshold, the city was required to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal before evaluating bids, and the absence of that step formed the core of the suspension rationale.
Conclusion
The suspension leaves the Brussels casino concession in a holding pattern while the Council of State completes its review, and the parties must now address the procedural shortfall before any operational steps can resume. The outcome will clarify whether the original scoring and selection process can stand or whether the city must repeat elements of the tender to satisfy European notification standards.