WRITTEN QUESTION P-1747/00 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Impartiality of the selection panel for the international architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels.
Date: 2000-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, architecture, infringement of EU law, works contract

C 53 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Is the Commission aware of the choice of this route for the (cid:145)Atlantic highway(cid:146), affecting as it does a
locality of European importance pursuant to Council Directive 93/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of
natural habitats?

Can the Commission state whether the construction of
cofinancing?

this section will benefit

from Community

What action does the Commission intend to take with the Spanish and Galician authorities in defence of
the integrity of GÆndaras de Budiæo?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Spanish authorities have indicated that the stretch of the (cid:145)Atlantic highway(cid:146) affecting Porriæo will not
be receiving Structural Fund cofinancing during the 2000-2006 programming period as it is to be built by
a private company through a concessionary arrangement.

As Spain has proposed the area in question, GÆndaras de Budiæo, as a site of Community importance
(ES 1140011), the Commission decided to launch an own-initiative investigation of the matters raised in
the Written Question. As part of its examination of the dossier, it has questioned the Spanish authorities to
check that Community law is being observed in this instance.

(2001/C 53 E/239)

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:

(cid:129) Mr Montois was associated with the winning firm (cid:145)Art & Build(cid:146)

in the context of a competition
launched in November 1997 for the renovation of the LOTTO tower and for which they were
appointed judges;

(cid:129) Mr Van 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(cid:146)s D3 building and
the new SNCB Quartier LØopold station;

(cid:129) Mr Lallemand, from the (cid:145)Art & Build(cid:146) 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(cid:146)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.

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/185

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 (cid:129) Mr Lallemand (cid:129) contradicts the principle of
the panel(cid:146)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(cid:146)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(cid:146) 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(cid:146)s involvement in the competition in
question, the Commission can only reiterate the statement already made in the answers to the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s Written Questions P-1486/99 (2) and P-2255/991 on the same matter:
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(cid:146)s power, assigned to it by the EC Treaty, to ensure that Member
States(cid:146) awarding authorities comply with Community law, particularly with regard to public procurement.

that

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 157.
(2) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2001/C 53 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1758/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: EU Bathing Water Directive

The EU(cid:146)s 25-year-old bathing water directive urgently requires revision. Particular attention should be paid
to the necessary organoleptic assessments, since optical assessments of bathing water are often misleading.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the outdated bathing water directive is brought up to date
as soon as possible?

How does the Commission propose to amend the substance of the directive particularly as regards
substances requiring measurement, measuring procedures and organoleptic assessment, to enable the
results of measurements to be objective and comparable in all situations?