WRITTEN QUESTION E-3485/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Berlaymont.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, costing, financing, improvement of housing, public building, seat of institution

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/71

(2002/C 172 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3485/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Berlaymont

What are the current (up to date) costs of the renovation and refurbishment of the Berlaymont?

How much of this cost will be taken on by the Commission?

What, at the beginning, was the total estimated cost of the project?

What is now the predicted total cost of the project?

What files have been handed over the the OLAF?

Has OLAF reported back on these files?

Have or will any prosecutions take place because of problems in the Berlaymont project?

Who has the ultimate responsibility for this project?

When will the Berlaymont actually be ready for occupation?

Will the Commission definitely return to the Berlaymont?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Renovation of the Berlaymont building is being managed by SA Berlaymont 2000 (B-2000) a company set
up under Belgian law with a capital of € 250 372 (BEF 10 100 000) and 70 % owned by the Belgian
Government’s Building Authority and 30 % owned by two banks, BACOB (now Artesia Bank) and ASLK/
CGER (now Fortis Bank).

In its annual report for 2000 (published on 1 June 2001), Berlaymont 2000 estimated that costs incurred
for the renovation of the Berlaymont would amount to € 395 588 500 (BEF 15,958 billion) by March
2002.

The Commission has continually emphasised that it will only bear the costs that it considers should
legitimately be met. That specifically excludes the financial consequences of any faults or management
errors that can be ascribed to the project company, and it specifically excludes any financial consequences
of possible fraud.

In the Protocole d’Accord signed by the Belgian Government and the European Commission on 8 July
1997 the cost of renovating the Berlaymont was estimated at € 324 million (BEF 13,1 billion) and that
estimate was based on the assumption that the building would be reoccupied on 30 June 2000.

The latest estimate of the final cost of renovation of the Berlaymont ? made by Berlaymont 2000 SA in
its Annual Report for the year 2000 ? is € 500 million (BEF 20,2 billion), assuming reoccupation by
31 December 2003.

On 21 November 2000, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) received a note from the responsible
Commission services informing the Office about serious misgivings which the Commission’s consultants,
Ernst & Young, had about a particular financial claim made by a major contractor to B-2000. The note was
sent with my full knowledge and endorsement, and OLAF was provided with a report on the project
prepared by the consultancy firm. After evaluation, the Director of OLAF decided on 5 December 2000 to
open an investigation concerning B-2000 and its management of the site. On the basis of matters arising
in the course of the investigation, a decision to open an internal investigation concerning the Commission
was made in June 2001. OLAF has received numerous files from the Commission and elsewhere and
continues to do so as it pursues the investigation.

The OLAF investigations are ongoing. The Commission is informed that the Office expects to finalise its
reports before July 2002. A team of three investigators is currently working on this case, and they are
assisted by a magistrate from the Magistrates and Legal Advice Unit within OLAF.

C 172 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Until investigations are concluded it is clearly not possible to say whether or not any prosecutions will be
undertaken.

The ultimate responsibility for the modernisation project lies with SA Berlaymont 2000.

The accumulated delays in work mean that SA Berlaymont 2000 now anticipates that the building will be
ready for occupation by 31 December 2003.

The ‘Protocole d’Accord’ of 1997 included a provision that the Commission and the Belgian government
would, in due course, negotiate a contract concerning the purchase of the building by the Commission.
Those negotiations have been underway since January 2001.

If they lead to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on all outstanding legal, financial and technical issues,
and if the work is of an acceptable quality (‘une bonne fin’ under the terms of the Protocol) the
Commission intends to return to the Berlaymont.

(2002/C 172 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Construction of a marina in the Vigo ria (Spain)

(8 January 2002)

The Voces polo literal de Teis association has expressed its concern regarding the plans for a marina in the
A Lagoa area, which would do yet more environmental damage to the Vigo ria (Galicia, Spain). Its
complaints are based on a report by the Vigo Ria Environmental Monitoring Centre and on documents
published by the Maritime Research Institute.

The Commission has already been alerted to the pollution of the beach at Samil and the plans for a waste
dump in the San Simón inlet ? these being just two of the projects which seriously threaten Galicia’s
coastline. The marina will have a 235-metre long breakwater and building it will cause major alterations to
the area’s eco-system and also the loss of the beach at A Lagoa.

In what way can the Commission intervene vis-à-vis the relevant authorities in order to ensure compliance
with Community environment
impact
assessment?

law, particularly Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on environmental

Will the Commission say whether or not Community funding has been requested for the purpose of
carrying out the project?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2),
could apply in the case in question as marinas are covered by Annex II (point 12(b)).

It should be noted that Article 2 of the Directive provides that projects likely to have significant effects on
the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be assessed with regard to their effects
before authorisation is granted.

For the projects listed in Annex II, the Member States must determine, on the basis of a case-by-case
examination or thresholds or criteria laid down by the Member State concerned, whether the project has
to undergo an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. For the case-by-case examination or when