WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/03 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. (Illegal) timber used for buildings to house the European Commission.
Date: 2003-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU control, European Commission, award of contract, building, building materials, building regulations, illicit trade, national law, wood for construction

C 58 E/62

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Commission proposed a single level of support by hectare, taking into consideration a number of
elements:

(cid:1) need for simplicity and ease of use;

(cid:1) the main reason for support is the multifunctional role of nuts. It is difficult to argue that different

type of nuts (almonds or hazelnuts, for example) contribute differently to this role.

The proposal of the Commission gives a substantial help towards achieving environmental and rural goals
ensuring the continuation of sustainable production in non-competitive and, at the same time, gives a
targeted support for competitive production.

Therefore, the Commission does not have the intention at this stage to make substantial modifications to
its initial proposal.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 167.
(2) COM(2003) 23 final.

(2004/C 58 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: (Illegal) timber used for buildings to house the European Commission

The European Commission will communicate a proposal for an EU action plan in the framework of Forest
Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). One of the issues in the action plan will be public
procurement. The Commission occupies many buildings in Brussels and should assume its responsibility to
ensure that no timber from illegal sources is being used.

Can the Commission give me a list of buildings occupied by the Commission, with details of the owners
for each of the buildings, details of all the refurbishment, redevelopment and new building over the last
five years or projected to start in the next six months, details of how the Commission checks the contracts,
details of contractors and subcontractors and in particular the companies that are providing their
contractors and subcontractors with timber and wood products?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Safeguards are in place to ensure that buildings procured by the Commission do not contain timbers from
illegal sources. Where fitting out of new buildings and refurbishment of existing buildings are executed on
behalf of the Commission they are carried out strictly in accordance with Belgian legislative requirements
including the prohibition of certain materials.

In addition, and subject to the technical particulars of a project, compliance with the requirements of
‘Immeuble Type’ is also sought. This document is the Commission’s standard specification for buildings
and sets out the standards for quality of space, use of materials and quality of technical
installations.
According to the current version ‘Improved forestry-management practices can only be encouraged if
invitations to tender specify that wood must come from forestry operations where the rules of sustainable
development are followed’.

In circumstances where the Commission can influence the market in respect of buildings it is likely to
acquire, such as the renovation of the Berlaymont, it makes an explicit requirement to the developer to
procure timber only from sustainable sources. Compliance with the requirements of Immeuble Type is
monitored by the technical staff of the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics (cid:1) Brussels. The final
acceptance of works carried out under building contracts is conditional upon the receipt of documentary
evidence of compliance with legislative and contractual requirements.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/63

The research required to provide a more detailed answer to the Honourable Member’s question, addressing
the specific points raised in respect of each building, would be out of all proportion to the result obtained
and would be inappropriate in the context of answering a written question. Nevertheless, some of the
requested detailed information on buildings & information on the Commission’s building standard,
‘Immeuble Type’, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member to supplement the above response.

(2004/C 58 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1381/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Swedish state aid to municipal housing companies

The development of cross-border property investment is one of the recent great breakthroughs of the
internal market, reaching EUR 25 billion in just a few years. This in turn is leading to the emergence of a
European property industry whose increasingly sophisticated services provide important underpinning for
the European economy. It is the duty of the Commission to ensure that State aid is not allowed to distort
competition in the property sector.

Last year, the Swedish government granted an initial EUR 300 million in subsidies to municipal housing
companies (MHCs). This included purchasing non-viable housing from MHCs for conversion to other uses
and providing MHCs with equity capital and loan guarantees. The distortion of competition ensues from
the fact that MHCs are not providers of social housing; they compete with private housing companies for
the same tenants. The distortion is magnified by the fact that the Swedish ‘utility value system’ obliges local
judges to set the rent of private landlords at the same rate as that of comparable MHCs. The State aid
therefore enables MHCs to bankrupt genuinely private housing companies by setting rents at levels that
their private competitors cannot match.

The distortion is particularly relevant to the substantial and increasing European property investment in
Sweden, because all of it is, by definition, private.

Following a complaint by the European Property Federation, the Commission launched an investigation
last summer (CP 115/02 (cid:1) Financial Support Granted to Swedish Municipal Housing Companies) and the
Swedish government responded.

1.

Did the Commission respond to the Swedish government’s letter of 16 October 2002 and if so, how?

2. What is the current state of the Commission’s investigations concerning this matter?

3. When does the Commission expect to conclude?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The information provided by the Swedish Government in their letter of 16 October 2002 is still

1.
being assessed; a formal response to the letter in question has thus not been made.