WRITTEN QUESTION E-0936/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Timetable for refurbishing the Berlaymont.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, financing, improvement of housing, seat of institution

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/155

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

According to the additional guarantees granted to Finland and Sweden in the context of their Act of
Accession to the Community live animals, eggs and fresh meat from other Member States have to be tested
for salmonella before dispatch to Finland or Sweden. Alternatively these animals or products have to be
derived from holdings or establishments subject to salmonella control programme recognised as equivalent
to those of Finland and Sweden.

The rules for the microbiological testing of meat intended to Finland and Sweden are laid down in Council
Decisions 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 laying down the rules for the microbiological testing by sampling
of fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden (1) and 95/411/EC of 22 June 1995
laying down the rules for the microbiological testing for salmonella by sampling of fresh poultrymeat
intended for Finland and Sweden (1). The method to be used for the testing of meat was originally the
International organisation for standardisation (ISO) 6579:1993. Following the opinion of the Scientific
Veterinary Committee of 3 June 1996 the method described by the Nordic Committee on Food Analysis
(NMKL No 71) was added to the authorised methods by Council Decision 98/227/EC of 16 March 1998
amending Decisions 95/409/EC, 95/410/EC and 95/411/EC concerning the methods to be used for
microbiological testing to be undertaken on meat intended for Finland and Sweden (2). This means that the
food businesses in the Member States can use either the ISO method or the Nordic method when testing
meat intended for Finland or Sweden. The Commission does not have complete information concerning
the different salmonella methods used in the Member States for testing of meat.

Otherwise there are no salmonella criteria or analysis methods laid down for testing of fresh meat in the
Community legislation. While Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 (3),
lays down
salmonella criteria for minced meat and meat preparations. This Directive does not fix methods to be
used for the testing of salmonella.

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.
(2) OJ L 87, 21.3.1998.
(3) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 318 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0936/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Timetable for refurbishing the Berlaymont

According to Swedish media reports there have been considerable delays in the reconstruction of the
Commission(cid:146)s former headquarters the Berlaymont building and the estimated cost has risen sharply.

Who will be liable for the costs of these delays? Does the Commission have it in writing that the suppliers
will bear the costs of the delays? Who is responsible for the delays? When does the Commission expect to
move back into the Berlaymont?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

As Vice-President Kinnock made clear in a press release on 5 December 2000 and in his statement to the
Commission on budgetary control (Cocobu) on 26 February 2001, the Commission received detailed
information in November 2000 showing that renovation work on the Berlaymont building will continue

C 318 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

to be delayed, that renovation is not likely to be completed before the end of 2003, and that the delays are
likely to give rise to cost increases.

The Commission has consequently undertaken, and continues to undertake, specific auditing activities. It
has also referred a particular concern to the European Anti-fraud office (OLAF) and has intensified contacts
with the Belgian Government which, as a result, is also taking an active role in securing more satisfactory
progress with the project.

The Commission has not signed any contract relating to the building. In July 1997 the Commission signed
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A.
Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum
included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of
renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice.

The Commission has made no conclusive undertaking to the other parties on costs, and it has made clear
that it will not bear any direct or indirect costs which may arise as a result of mismanagement by S.A.
Berlaymont 2000, including extra costs due to delays.

Legal proceedings between S.A. Berlaymont 2000 and some of its contractors are currently taking place.
Among the issues which have given rise to those proceedings are disputes between those parties about
responsibility for delays and for related extra costs.

Preliminary negotiations relating to the possibility of agreeing a satisfactory and secure contract on the
Berlaymont renovation with the Belgian State are underway. As the Vice-President of the Commission,
Mr Kinnock, has reported, Parliament will be informed about progress of these negotiations.

(2001/C 318 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0941/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Unequal treatment in the livestock crisis

In order to tackle the BSE crisis, the Commission has proposed that ITL 2 000 billion be set aside for 14 EU
Member States. It has also decided that cattle herds in which there have been cases of BSE should be
slaughtered, to varying extents from country to country. This has spread panic amongst both breeders and
consumers and given the impression that the Commission is blindly groping in the dark.

Given that the transmission of the disease to humans appears to have been scientifically ruled out, does the
Commission not consider the destruction of vast swathes of livestock to be both pointless and harmful?
What are the scientific grounds for its decision?

How can it consider the appropriation of ITL 2 000 billion for 14 countries to be adequate, when in 1995
it earmarked 6000 billion for Great Britain alone, without managing to curb the epidemic, which since
then has spread to the rest of Europe?

Given the high number of animals slaughtered because of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, why does the
Commission not consider allowing the free transfer of milk quotas between Member States,
to
counterbalance the growing milk production shortages by increasing the percentage of imported milk?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Scientists believe that there is a very close link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the
human disease known as (cid:145)new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease(cid:146), although no direct causal relationship has
yet been demonstrated.