WRITTEN QUESTION P-2255/99 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels.
Date: 1999-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, architecture, infringement of EU law, labour market

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/157

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion regarding the conditions needing to be met in order to be part of
the European area of justice?

Does it not consider that inclusion in this area is incompatible with the continued existence of penal

2.
codes seen as (cid:145)inadequate(cid:146) by those who operate them?

3.
Does it not share the view of many Italian citizens that the Union should intervene and (cid:145)recommend(cid:146)
reforms of the legal system to the Italian Government to prevent the serious anomalies and injustices with
which the system is riddled?

Does it not believe that, unless serious reforms are undertaken, the inclusion of Italy in the European

4.
area of justice could generate imbalance and instability?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission sees its task as putting information at citizens(cid:146) disposal by contributing to the launch of
an information campaign and to the publication of appropriate (cid:145)user guides(cid:146) on judicial co-operation
within the Union and on the legal systems of the Member States, as foreseen by conclusion No 29 of the
Tampere European Council. Citizens should thus be able to know their rights, which is a prerequisite for
them to exercise them. The Commission does not think that this goal would be furthered by trying to
include in the material chapters any alleged miscarriages of justice in one or several Member States.

The European area of justice is one of the objectives of the Union, as foreseen by Article 29 (ex-Article K1)
of the Treaty on European Union. Therefore, it is for the Union to take measures at its level. It is not for
the Union to interfere with the administration of justice in the Member States, as long as it is carried out
in line with the legal requirements imposed by the treaties and the legal instruments adopted in accordance
therewith. There are no requirements on Member States(cid:146) penal codes or penal procedure codes as such.
Only the parts dealing with subjects covered by above-mentioned legal instruments need to be aligned.

All the Member States are bound by the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms, which in its Article 6 covers the right to a fair trial. Article 7 (ex-Article
F1) of the Treaty on European Union foresees that the Council may take sanctions against a Member State
for breaches of fundamental rights, including those foreseen in the above-mentioned convention. This,
however, is only foreseen for (cid:145)serious and persistent breaches(cid:146).

(2000/C 203 E/203)

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 (cid:145)by defending
his project [(cid:133)] brought about a loss of anonymity for all the projects(cid:146). 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 (cid:145)bringing about a loss of anonymity(cid:146)?

According to the Commission(cid:146)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?

C 203 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

How can the Belgian authorities maintain that (cid:145)there was nothing to suggest that the members of the panel
had been biased in favour of one of the candidates(cid:146), 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 (cid:145)Art & Build(cid:146)?

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 (cid:145)measures would have been taken to
involve the various parties involved(cid:146) 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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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(cid:146)s involvement is restricted to participation in
from the Council, one from the
the funding. The selection panel apparently included one official
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.

(2000/C 203 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject:

(cid:145)Horse wrestling(cid:146)

Would the Commission indicate whether it finds it acceptable that, in Spain, the spectator (cid:145)sport(cid:146) of (cid:145)horse
wrestling(cid:146) is allowed to continue?

Constituents of mine have been shocked to see images on British television of wild horses being wrestled
to the ground in the name of entertainment as they are (cid:145)broken in(cid:146).

Is there any action the Commission is able to take to prevent such cruelty taking place in the Member
States?