WRITTEN QUESTION P-2255/99

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

(24 November 1999)

Subject: International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels

In its reply to Written Question P-1486/99(1), the Commission stated that the complainant by defending his project [mldr] brought about a loss of anonymity for all the projects. What stage of the competition procedure was the Commission referring to? Was it referring to the oral presentation of projects which took place on 22 April 1998 on the basis of an invitation from the adjudication panel at the second stage of the proceedings? If so, what is meant by bringing about a loss of anonymity?

According to the Commission's reply, the Belgian authorities, when questioned, acknowledged that certain provisions on the appointment of deputies for panel members had not been respected. In this connection:

What was the status of Minister Hasquin as an honorary member of the panel and signatory to its report? On what legal basis was Minister Hasquin allowed to play a decisive role in the panel, given that his participation in the decision was not clearly provided for at the beginning of the competition?

How can the Belgian authorities maintain that there was nothing to suggest that the members of the panel had been biased in favour of one of the candidates, and thereby suggest that non-compliance with certain provisions governing the work of the panel can be justified?

Can it explain why, at the second stage of the proceedings, two members of the panel did not sign the final decision of 22 April 1998 and yet that the two signatures subsquently reappeared in the same decision?

Can it explain how it was possible for a member of the panel, Mr Henri Montois, to be associated with the winning firm Art & Build?

Does the Commission agree that Article 12 of Directive 92/50/EEC(2) was not respected in terms of the criteria for assessing projects set out in the rules governing the work of the panel when the first-stage decision was announced, insofar as there was no clear explanation of how points were awarded to each project (the remarks made about the project with the highest score were more negative than those for others!)?

Does the Commission not consider that it shares responsibility for management of the competition, given that it was represented by a full member of the panel?

In its reply to the same written question, the Commission states that measures would have been taken to involve the various parties involved whenever the projects were devised. Will the Commission specify which parties? Was the local population consulted at that stage?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 91.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

Following the answer given to the honourable Member's Written Question P-1486/99(1), the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Belgium for a breach of Article 13 (concerning contests) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(2). A letter of formal notice was sent on 4 November 1999.

Inasmuch as the honourable Member's question contains new facts, further consideration seems to be required. The Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate action.

As already indicated in the answer to Written Question P-1486/99, the only awarding authority in the case in question is the Brussels-Capital Region. The Community's involvement is restricted to participation in the funding. The selection panel apparently included one official from the Council, one from the Parliament and one from the Commission. This participation in the panel does not, however, imply any responsibility on the part of the institutions with regard to the award of the contract.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 91.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.