WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Uncertainty as to progress in the ongoing renovation work, funding and future use of the Berlaymont building in Brussels.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, European Commission, asbestos, contract, financing, improvement of housing, invitation to tender, property leasing, trade agreement

C 277 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Does the Commission agree that the most obvious, publicly acceptable, appropriate and affordable
4.
solution is that the existing hourly service between Groningen and Nieuweschans should be extended a
short distance over the border to Leer, instead of having a few special cross-border trains a day or a very
limited shuttle service between Nieuweschans and Leer?

5. What measures does the Commission envisage taking in order to help bring these protracted and
unproductive disputes to an end as soon as possible and ensure that the original objective of the upgrading
work, namely a better and more frequent train connection with as few changes as possible between
Groningen and Bremen can be achieved without delay?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1078/02, E-1079/02 and E-1080/02
given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is in the process of gathering the information required to answer the question. It will
communicate its findings to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

(2002/C 277 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Uncertainty as to progress in the ongoing renovation work,

funding and future use of the

Berlaymont building in Brussels

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the Berlaymont building on Robert Schumann square in Brussels,
which used to house the Commission and its staff and which was contaminated with asbestos was to have
been renovated over the period 8 July 1997 to 30 June 2000 at a cost of € 324 million by the NV
Berlaymont 2000, a construction company with a capital of only € 250 372, 70 % of which is held by the
Belgian Government, the remaining 30 % being held by the Fortis and Dexia banking and insurance
companies, but that this company has not managed to carry out the work and now the building is not
expected to be handed over until 1 January 2004 at a cost of € 500 million and that the company must
have € 400 million before 31 March 2002 to repay a loan dating from 1998 as well as over € 670 million
to continue the work and that, on top of this, Fortis wants to withdraw from the arrangement?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that it has not renewed the agreement with the Belgian Government
on the future use of the building which should have been signed before 31 December 2001 and that at the
end of February the lease on the buildings in which staff are temporarily housed was extended?

3.
Is the Commission still negotiating with the Belgian Government on the possible purchase of this
building if the renovation work is completed? Will the price of the building be influenced by the endless
delays in its being handed over, the rising costs and the findings of the anti-fraud unit OLAF which are due
to be published in mid 2002?

To what extent has the budget of the European Union been affected by the significant delay in the

4.
Berlaymont building being made available?

5. What are the financial and organisational
decides not to return to the Berlaymont building?

implications for the EU if the Commission ultimately

6.

How and when will the decision on whether or not to return to the Berlaymont building be taken?

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/147

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

1.
The elements set out in the Honourable Member’s first question correspond to the information in our
possession with the following exceptions: first, the delivery date of the building of 1 January 2004 and the
cost of the renovation continue to be estimates; second, the total renovation cost for the basic building is
currently estimated at more than € 600 million, and third, after having published a tender in February
2002 for the short-term financing of the renovation works, the Belgian government decided, in March
2002, to finance the ongoing renovation work through a credit line provided by the Belgian treasury.

2.
The Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Commission and the Belgian State on
17 July 2001 foresaw the signature of a contract fixing the price, the technical specifications and the
delivery date of the building before 31 December 2001. In the event, the contract was not signed by that
date because the responsible Belgian Minister, Rik Daems, wished first to have an audit of SA/NV
Berlaymont 2000 and an evaluation of the value of the building. The payment regime for the rental of the
substitution buildings has not been modified, payment still being made by the Belgian State.

3.
The discussions on the possible purchase of the building continue. In determining the price that the
Commission would consider paying, the Commission will base itself on its own analysis of the source of
delays in the execution of the renovation works and of subsequent price increases.

4.
Currently, the budget of the Union is not adversely affected either by the fact that the Berlaymont is
not available or by the significant delays in its delivery. The Belgian government continues to pay
€ 33 million for the rent of substitution buildings while the European Commission continues to pay
€ 14,2 million rent for the Berlaymont building.

5.
Due to the fact that negotiations are still underway the Honourable Member’s question on financial
and organisational implications cannot be answered in detail at this juncture. However, it is clear that the
Commission would look for alternatives to the Berlaymont if conditions, price and date relating to the
return to the building could not be satisfactorily concluded.

The decision of whether or not to reoccupy the Berlaymont is directly related to the success or

6.
otherwise in concluding the contract currently under discussion (see point 2).

(2002/C 277 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Progress in implementing the ‘Agricultural Development’ and ‘Fisheries’ programmes in the third

CSF in Greece

Could the Commission state:

1. Whether it is satisfied with the initial progress of the ‘Agricultural Development’ and ‘Fisheries’
programmes in the third CSF in Greece?

2. What the reasons are for the problems which have been detected?

3. What view it
corresponding programmes in other EU Member States?

the progress of

takes of

these programmes in Greece as compared with the

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

On 4 April 2001 and on 28 March 2001, the Commission adopted the ‘National Operational
1.
Programme (NOP)-Rural Development
(2000-2006)’ and the ‘NOP-Fisheries (2000-2006)’ while the
corresponding Programming Complements were adopted on 2 July 2001 and on 8 June 2001 respectively.
Although Greece was one of the last of the fifteen Member States to adopt the programming documents,
the Commission considers that the delays observed are to a certain degree justifiable.