I PUBLIC LAW I Rare example of the termination of a public contract through summary proceedings

Dijon Administrative Court, December 23, 2025, No. 2504590

1) Facts and Procedure

The Regional Directorate of Cultural Affairs of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (DRAC BFC) launched a call for tenders for a contract concerning the transfer of archaeological artifacts.

On December 3, 2025, Les Gentlemen du Transfert (LGT) was informed that its bid had been rejected and that the contract had been awarded to JPL Déménagement. The unsuccessful bidder then filed a pre-contractual injunction on December 4, before the contract was signed between the buyer and the successful bidder on December 5, 2025.

2) Arguments of the Parties

The applicant company requested the judge in summary proceedings:

• Primarily, to order the annulment of the procurement procedure on the basis of Articles L. 551-1 and L. 551-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice,
• Alternatively, to declare the contract concluded between the buyer and the successful bidder null and void on the basis of Article L. 551-18 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

It argues that the tender documents contained contradictory information regarding the use of subcontracting, such that the buyer had failed to comply with its obligations of transparency and competitive tendering.

3) Decision reached by the court

After dismissing the arguments presented based on Articles L. 551-1 and L. 551-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which had become moot since the contract was signed, the judge rejected the request for annulment of the contract. Indeed, although the contracting authority had provided partially contradictory information in the tender documents, or at the very least, information likely to cause confusion, the applicant company chose to subcontract all the transfer services, even though this option was clearly prohibited by the tender documents, thus justifying the rejection of its bid.

Subsequently, the judge ordered the termination of the contract due to the contracting authority’s violation of Article L. 551-4 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which prohibits the signing of the contract from the time the administrative court is seized until the court’s decision is notified. This termination is justified, in particular, by the absence of any overriding reason of public interest justifying the continued performance of the contract, which, moreover, had not even begun to be performed.

4) What conclusions can be drawn from this decision ?

The termination of a contract through a pre-contractual injunction is extremely rare, especially if the injunction is based solely on a breach of the standstill period. The judge takes care to specify that this termination decision is motivated, in particular, by the fact that the public contract had not yet been performed and that the 30% advance payment had not yet been made