WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Renovation of the Berlaymont building.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, financing, improvement of housing, seat of institution

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/73

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

In the context of the Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, Council
Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 provides for the sale of product delivered and the use
of sale proceeds for social measures.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) further provides for Special Account receipts to be disbursed
for the payment of pensions (80 %) and for specific social purposes (20 %). The MoU also obliged the
Russian authorities to provide regular reports on receipts to and disbursement from the Special Account.
These reports are presented by the Ministry for Finance to the Joint Working Group (JWG), which meets
regularly to manage the Programme. No disbursement from the Special Account can be made unless
approved by the Commission upon the recommendation of the JWG.

According to the latest reports the disbursement of funds from the Special Account to the agreed areas is
as follows:

(cid:129) Pension Fund: € 177 million,

(cid:129) Ministries for Health and Labour: € 44 million (22 million to each).

The current balances remaining on the Account are:

(cid:129) Pension Fund: € 13 million,

(cid:129) Ministries for Health and Labour: € 3,2 million.

Reports relating to disbursement to the Pension Fund include details as to the amount and date of receipt
from the Special Account, payments from the State Pension Fund to regional branches including the
amount and date of transaction. In the context of control the Commission(cid:146)s Technical Assistance Unit has
undertaken a number of audit missions to beneficiary regions. These missions have verified that there is
a clear audit trail identifying the flow of funds from the State Pension Fund to the final recipient i.e. the
pensioner.

The reports received in respect of usage of Special Account funds by the Ministries for Health and Labour
clearly show that these funds have been dedicated for the purchase of equipment for hospitals, medical
institutions and children(cid:146)s clinics/schools. The equipment purchase includes wheelchairs, computers for
boarding schools, beds for hospitals, clothes and laundry equipment.

(2001/C 350 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building

(6 April 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s headquarters in the Berlaymont building has been out of use for several years. Its
renovation was in view of future use. How much has the Commission committed itself to paying for the
renovations and how will this amount be taken into account in the rents charged on the building?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Berlaymont Building was vacated by the European Commission in 1991 when proof was provided
that the condition of the asbestos used in its construction had deteriorated to the point where it breached
safety requirements.

C 350 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

As already pointed out in the reply to Written Question E-936/01 by Mr Sj(cid:246)stedt (1), (cid:145)the Commission has
not signed any contract relating to the Berlaymont 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.(cid:146) The costs of
renovating the building after removal of the asbestos were estimated to be € 324 million.

The provision mentioned above retains its validity. Meanwhile,
the Commission and the Belgian
Government are currently re-examining the Memorandum of Understanding with a view to establishing
a contract which fixes the final cost of the building, precisely describes the work covered by the contract,
and sets down a firm delivery date.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.

(2001/C 350 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The FlØchard affair

What measures has the Commission taken to resolve the (cid:145)FlØchard affair(cid:146) and to find possible culprits
among the Commission(cid:146)s own officials?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The so-called (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) case has during more than two years been exhaustively examined by the
Commission, the Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control, the European Court of Auditors and the
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Commission has over this time on numerous occasions supplied
information to the various bodies. The Honourable Member is advised to consult this comprehensive
documentation available to the Parliament, f. ex. the Commission reply of 10 May 2000 to the Court of
Auditors presidential letter, the reply of 19 March 2001 to the questionnaire addressed to the Commission
by the (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) working group of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the member responsible for
Budget(cid:146)s statement to the Parliament in April 2001 for the 1999 discharge. In addition, OLAF transmitted
in March 2001 its report concerning the minutes of the Commission interservice meeting of 7 January
1994 to the Commission and to the Parliament.

The Commission is of the view that the case is thoroughly documented and does not see any possibility,
nor need, to take further measures to resolve it.

(2001/C 350 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s staff policy

The Commission is reforming its staff policy with the aim of improving the efficiency of its operations.
This is a perfectly correct objective. Some staff representatives have already threatened legal action if the
reforms do not satisfy officials. If a strike occurs, will the Commission take the line that the officials should
be paid for the time they are on strike?