WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Uncertainty as to progress in the ongoing renovation work, funding and future use of the Berlaymont building in Brussels

1. Can the Commission confirm that the Berlaymont building on Robert Schumann square in Brussels, which used to house the Commission and its staff and which was contaminated with asbestos was to have been renovated over the period 8 July 1997 to 30 June 2000 at a cost of 324 million by the NV Berlaymont 2000, a construction company with a capital of only 250 372, 70 % of which is held by the Belgian Government, the remaining 30 % being held by the Fortis and Dexia banking and insurance companies, but that this company has not managed to carry out the work and now the building is not expected to be handed over until 1 January 2004 at a cost of 500 million and that the company must have 400 million before 31 March 2002 to repay a loan dating from 1998 as well as over 670 million to continue the work and that, on top of this, Fortis wants to withdraw from the arrangement?

2. Can the Commission confirm that it has not renewed the agreement with the Belgian Government on the future use of the building which should have been signed before 31 December 2001 and that at the end of February the lease on the buildings in which staff are temporarily housed was extended?

3. Is the Commission still negotiating with the Belgian Government on the possible purchase of this building if the renovation work is completed? Will the price of the building be influenced by the endless delays in its being handed over, the rising costs and the findings of the anti-fraud unit OLAF which are due to be published in mid 2002?

4. To what extent has the budget of the European Union been affected by the significant delay in the Berlaymont building being made available?

5. What are the financial and organisational implications for the EU if the Commission ultimately decides not to return to the Berlaymont building?

6. How and when will the decision on whether or not to return to the Berlaymont building be taken?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

1. The elements set out in the Honourable Member's first question correspond to the information in our possession with the following exceptions: first, the delivery date of the building of 1 January 2004 and the cost of the renovation continue to be estimates; second, the total renovation cost for the basic building is currently estimated at more than 600 million, and third, after having published a tender in February 2002 for the short-term financing of the renovation works, the Belgian government decided, in March 2002, to finance the ongoing renovation work through a credit line provided by the Belgian treasury.

2. The Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Commission and the Belgian State on 17 July 2001 foresaw the signature of a contract fixing the price, the technical specifications and the delivery date of the building before 31 December 2001. In the event, the contract was not signed by that date because the responsible Belgian Minister, Rik Daems, wished first to have an audit of SA/NV Berlaymont 2000 and an evaluation of the value of the building. The payment regime for the rental of the substitution buildings has not been modified, payment still being made by the Belgian State.

3. The discussions on the possible purchase of the building continue. In determining the price that the Commission would consider paying, the Commission will base itself on its own analysis of the source of delays in the execution of the renovation works and of subsequent price increases.

4. Currently, the budget of the Union is not adversely affected either by the fact that the Berlaymont is not available or by the significant delays in its delivery. The Belgian government continues to pay 33 million for the rent of substitution buildings while the European Commission continues to pay 14,2 million rent for the Berlaymont building.

5. Due to the fact that negotiations are still underway the Honourable Member's question on financial and organisational implications cannot be answered in detail at this juncture. However, it is clear that the Commission would look for alternatives to the Berlaymont if conditions, price and date relating to the return to the building could not be satisfactorily concluded.

6. The decision of whether or not to reoccupy the Berlaymont is directly related to the success or otherwise in concluding the contract currently under discussion (see point 2).