WRITTEN QUESTION P-1747/00

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 May 2000)

Subject: Impartiality of the selection panel for the international architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels

In reply to Question P-2255/99(1) on the competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels, which I submitted, the Commission stated that it had initiated infringement proceedings against Belgium for a breach of Article 13 (concerning contests) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June.

During the two stages of the competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels, three members of the panel did not have the independence required by the directive referred to:

- was associated with the winning firm Art & Build in the context of a competition launched in November 1997 for the renovation of the LOTTO tower and for which they were appointed judges;

- de Voorde, the chairman of the panel, was at the time of the competition on his own admission specially associated with the Genval architectural office (placed second in the competition) in the context of projects concerning the construction of the European Parliament's D3 building and the new SNCB Quartier Léopold station;

- from the Art & Build office, was at the time of the competition already in charge of project realisation and management of the construction team renovating Berlaymont 2000, technical coordination of which was the responsibility of Mr Giulianelli, member of the panel as the European Commission's representative.

There was no provision in the competition rules for the presence on the selection panel of Mr Van Hufflen, Mr Martiny or honorary chairman Mr Hasquin (all Belgian). As a result, at the second stage there were eight Belgian panel members (excluding Mr Hasquin) whereas the rules stipulated that there should be only five Belgian members.

Has the Commission also initiated infringement proceedings against Belgium for lack of independence in the selection panel in view of the above information? If not, does the Commission not consider it should do so? Does the Commission not think that the professional connection between Mr Giulianelli and one of the architects from the winning firm Mr Lallemand contradicts the principle of the panel's independence with regard to the participants?

How can the Commission state in its reply to question P-2255/99 that it does not share responsibility for the management of the competition when it was represented on the panel? Should it not, during the competition, have made use of its powers to ensure observance of Community directives, particularly Directive 92/50/EEC?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 157.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

As indicated in the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-2255/99(1), the Commission has obtained further information from the national authorities under the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty which it has brought against Belgium. This information relates to the new facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in the above-mentioned Written Question and concerns the composition and independence of the members of the selection panel and also the procedure for assessing the tenders. The Commission is currently analysing in depth the Belgian authorities' answer to this new request for information, as well as their reply to the letter of formal notice.

With regard to the more specific question concerning the Commission's involvement in the competition in question, the Commission can only reiterate the statement already made in the answers to the Honourable Member's Written Questions P-1486/99(2) and P-2255/991 on the same matter: that the awarding authority in this case is the Brussels-Capital Region. The presence of a Commission official on the selection panel does not prejudice the Commission's power, assigned to it by the EC Treaty, to ensure that Member States' awarding authorities comply with Community law, particularly with regard to public procurement.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 157.

(2) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.