WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding of renovation of the Berlaymont building.
Date: 2002-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brussels region, European Commission, improvement of housing, invitation to tender, short-term financing

C 229 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/02

by Jan Andersson (PSE) and Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: The ‘Reprendre (cid:21) City of Tomorrow’ project and application deadlines

We have been contacted by the Blekinge Institute in the Swedish city of Karlskrona and by the University
of Kent at Medway in the UK. We were informed that their project application ‘Reprendre (cid:21) City of
Tomorrow’ (proposal No: EVK4-2001-00256 Reprendre) was rejected by the Commission because the
application was slightly late in arriving at the Commission’s offices.

According to the information we have at our disposal, the late arrival of the application was caused by a
strike on Belgian railways. We take the view that that was an event that the applicants could not possibly
have prevented or foreseen. We therefore find it remarkable and unreasonable that the Commission would
not accept the existence of ‘force majeure’, especially since we understand that the Commission regards
genuinely exceptional circumstances of this nature as viable arguments in the event of failure to meet
project output deadlines. Moreover, we feel that it must be virtually impossible for EU citizens to
understand and accept that applications that have been thoroughly prepared, frequently at considerable
cost, are not even assessed by the Commission because of a train strike or similar.

In light of the above, would it be possible for the Commission to reconsider its initial judgment

1.
regarding the ‘City of Tomorrow’ application and to assess it as though it had arrived on time?

2. Would it not be reasonable, as a general rule, to apply a system whereby the date of posting (as
evidenced by the postmark) is taken as the basis for determining if an application is sent within the
deadline or not?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

1.
The choice of method of submitting projects (hard copy or electronically) and sending in proposals
in response to the call for proposals concerned (EESD-ESD-3) was left to the discretion of tenderers. In the
case in point, the proposers chose to deliver their proposal in person and made arrangements to deliver it
on 15 October 2001 at 16h30, 30 minutes before the expiry of the deadline, even though the call for
proposals was published on 15 November 2000, 11 months earlier. Given the frequent delays that can
occur with transport systems, this extremely small margin was a considerable risk that the tenderers took
deliberately.

The ‘force majeure’ argument cannot be invoked here. The Commission complied with all the rules laid
down for the evaluation of proposals, and can only express its regrets to the tenderers, but cannot go back
on its decision to declare the proposal ineligible. This position was explained in a letter dated 19 March
2002 replying to the Members of Parliament.

2.
Unlike earlier calls for proposals, the EESD-ESD-3 call referred to the delivery and not the sending of
proposals. Earlier evaluations had been disrupted as result of late receipt of proposals caused by delays in
delivery by the various European postal services. This prompted the Commission to adopt this new
arrangement, which has proved broadly satisfactory.

(2002/C 229 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Funding of renovation of the Berlaymont building

(27 March 2002)

The company ‘Berlaymont 2000’ has been renovating the Berlaymont building for the Commission since
1995. The Belgian public buildings administration is the majority shareholder in ‘Berlaymont 2000’.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/147

On 7 and 8 March 2002 the newspaper ‘L’Echo’ reported that on 22 February 2002 ‘Berlaymont 2000’
had issued an invitation to tender for a new loan of approximately EUR 650 million for the future funding
of the building project. This new loan is intended to replace the existing loan, which was negotiated in
April 1998 to run until 31 March 2002.

Is the Commission Vice-President responsible for this matter satisfied that the provisions of Council
Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
service contracts were respected during the tender process?

Can the Commission state which of the procedures provided for in Article 1 of the Directive was used: an
open, restricted or negotiated procedure?

Can it explain why the process was so rapid (invitation to tender on 22 February 2002, publication of
expressions of interest on 6 March 2002)?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

The Commission is advised that the call for tender launched on 22 February 2002 by S.A. Berlaymont
2000 aimed at the short-term financing of the modernisation of the Berlaymont. The Honourable Member
should note that it was not published in the Official Journal of the Community. However, if the estimated
value of this contract was to have been above the threshold of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, this tender
procedure would have been in breach of the Directive.

The Vice-President responsible for Personnel and Administration was surprised at the methods and terms
of this call for tender and its result, and expressed his reservations to the relevant Belgian Minister,
M. Daems, in a letter of 7 March 2002.

It transpired that, since the Belgian State decided at the end of March 2002 to ensure the short-term
financing of the modernisation of the Berlaymont, this call for tender was unnecessary and was not
pursued.

(2002/C 229 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Paired trawling and dolphin deaths

Is the Commission aware of the large number of dead dolphins washed up on the coasts of south-west
England and France in recent months?

It has been suggested that the reason for this phenomenon is the increasingly common practice of paired
trawling, where two trawlers drag a net at high speed between them.

Does the Commission accept that analysis? If so, what steps does it intend to take to help protect the
dolphin community?