WRITTEN QUESTION P-3078/00 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Selection panel for the international architectural competition relating to the European Quarter: partiality, qualifications and presence of Belgian panel members.
Date: 2000-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, architecture, infringement of EU law, works contract

C 103 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The profession of clinical dental technician has not been harmonised at Community level, which means
that the Member States alone are competent to grant practitioner status and to regulate the profession
(training requirements, conditions for taking up and pursuing the profession).

to certain limits imposed by
The Member States(cid:146) powers and responsibilities are, however, subject
Community harmonisation regarding the dental profession. Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July
1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
respect of the activities of dental practitioners (1), which coordinated dental training, lays down the training
requirements which the Member States must impose for access to the profession of dental practitioner.
That Directive was a prerequisite for the automatic mutual recognition of dental qualifications provided for
by Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures
to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (1), and lays
down minimum requirements which ensure that the care provided by the practitioners in question is of a
high quality.

It follows from this harmonisation that the Member States are no longer competent to create or continue
to allow a profession that is different and separate from that of dentist, but whose field of activity is very
similar or identical. Although the Member States are free to establish and regulate professions such as
dental technician or dental hygienist as they see fit, they cannot authorise such professionals (who would
possess neither the level of training nor the formal qualification required by the (cid:145)dentist(cid:146) Directives) to
perform the same activities as dentists. To do so would be contrary to the spirit and structure of the
Directives and would deprive them of their effectiveness.

Finally, where practitioner status is granted, Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a
general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional
education and training of at least three years(cid:146) duration (2) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second
general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/
EEC (3) on a general system for the recognition of diplomas apply to mutual recognition by Member States
of the qualifications in question.

(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978.
(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 103 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3078/00

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

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Selection panel for the international architectural competition relating to the European Quarter:

partiality, qualifications and presence of Belgian panel members

Further to complaint 98/5025SG-Belgium, and as indicated in its reply to Question P-1747/00 (1), the
Commission has issued formal notice to the Belgian authorities regarding the lack of impartiality of
the panel,
Mr H. Montois, an architect and member of
Mr J. Vandervoorde, an architect from the CERAU office, was not impartial either, because from 3 October
1990 he was a partner and shareholder in the Espace LØopold architectural office, which took the form of
a limited company, on the same basis as Mr A. Jacqmain, an architect from the Genval architectural office
(placed second in the competition), in connection with the construction of the D4, D5 and SNCB buildings
in rue de TrŁves, Brussels.

the selection panel. The chairman of

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/239

Does the Commission therefore intend to issue formal notice to the Belgian authorities regarding

1.
Mr J. Vandervoorde(cid:146)s lack of impartiality, too?

In Question P-1747/00 it was also pointed out that eight Belgian members took part in the work of the
selection panel, instead of the five provided for by the competition(cid:146)s rules and referred to in the notice of
competition (2), which was published in accordance with Annex IV (notice of competition) to Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 (3).

2.
Can the Commission state its view about this aspect and indicate, in this case, whether the active
presence of the three Belgian members not referred to in the notice of competition is in accordance with
the spirit of Directive 92/50/EEC?

Does Mr H. Hasquin satisfy the criteria regarding the qualifications required to sit on the selection

3.
panel (given that he is neither an architect nor a town planner) and support its decisions (4)?

Bearing in mind the evidence supplied and the facts already revealed about the procedure for
impartiality, does the

4.
assessing the tenders, the composition of the selection panel and its lack of
Commission intend to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice?

If so, can the Commission tell us when it intends to do so?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.
(2)

In the notice of competition Mr H. Hasquin, Mr J. Van Hufflen and Mr B. Martigny are not listed as members of the
selection panel.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(4) See the selection panel(cid:146)s report on the first round, p. 4/7, 6th paragraph, where it is stated (cid:145)The Minister supports

this decision(cid:146).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

Further to the new information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question P-2255/
1.
99 (1) on the composition and impartiality of the selection panel and the procedure for assessing the
tenders, the Commission has sent a second letter of formal notice to the Belgian authorities, listing as
grounds the lack of impartiality of Mr Montois and the fact that the selection panel neglected to base its
decisions exclusively on the criteria outlined in the competition documents, in breach of Article 13(6) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of
public service contracts.

As regards Mr Vandevoorde(cid:146)s alleged lack of impartiality, the Commission is at present carefully examining
the information provided in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

2.
As to the alleged participation of eight Belgian members in the work of the selection panel, instead
of the five provided for in the competition rules, it should be noted that, according to the Commission(cid:146)s
information, the competition rules provided for seven Belgian members and two Belgian alternates, in
addition to five non-Belgian members and three (non-Belgian) representatives from the European institu-
tions. The selection panel(cid:146)s reports reveal that the selection panel was made up of eight non-Belgians and
seven Belgians at the first round held on 11/12 December 1997, and comprised seven non-Belgians and
six Belgians at the second round.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Directive 92/50/EEC does not preclude changes to the composition of
the selection panel, provided that its members satisfy the three essential conditions regarding impartiality,
qualifications and observing anonymity.

As regards Mr Hasquin(cid:146)s qualifications, the selection panel(cid:146)s report from the second round held on
3.
21/22 April 1998 reveals that Mr Hasquin did not vote. Moreover, as to the qualifications of the selection
panel, Article 13(6) of Directive 92/50/EEC stipulates that (cid:145)where a particular professional qualification is
required from participants in a contest, at least a third of its members must have the same qualification or
its equivalent.(cid:146)

The Commission is currently awaiting a response from the Belgian authorities to its second letter of

4.
formal notice before it decides on any further action.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.