WRITTEN QUESTION E-2561/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Refurbishment of the Berlaymont building.
Date: 2003-08-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, contract, contract terms, fraud, improvement of housing, public building, trade agreement

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/179

Further, under the EQUAL Community initiative, financial support is granted to Development Partnerships
which bring together key actors committed to developing and testing new ways of delivering employment
and social inclusion policies. Member States are responsible for providing funding according to European
Social Fund rules and procedures. Funding of capital equipment is, exceptionally, eligible under EQUAL,
provided it is directly linked and necessary for the success of a Development Partnership, and only
constitutes a minor part of the total expenditure.

However, providing financial support mainly for upgrading capital equipment and facilities would not be
possible either under the Community Action Programme to combat social exclusion or under EQUAL.

Further information on the operation of these, and other programmes, can be found on the web site
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/).

(2004/C 58 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2561/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Refurbishment of the Berlaymont building

On 28 April this year the judge Patrick Collignon of the Brussels public prosecutor’s office started an
investigation against unknown persons for financial irregularities involved in the refurbishment of the
Berlaymont building, which was the headquarters of the European Commission until 1991.

The Brussels judiciary launched the inquiry after receiving a dossier from Olaf, the EU anti-fraud office,
which has in turn opened an inquiry into two contracts which apparently did not comply with legislation
governing public contracts. The restructuring of the historic building has gone on for years, with soaring
costs and substantial delays in the project schedule.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it has any information about the inquiry by the Brussels public prosecutor’s office;

(cid:1) what steps it will take to safeguard the Union’s financial interests;

(cid:1) whether the contracts with the companies involved in the refurbishment envisaged a penalty in the
event of delays in delivery and, if so, who was supposed to question any infringement and how many
and what kind of disputes there have been and what the outcome was?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

On 13 November 2002, after prolonged negotiations, the Commission signed an agreement with the
Belgian Government and SA Berlaymont 2000 which set out the main points of the acquisition by the
Community of the Berlaymont building and the land surrounding it.

That agreement has a price ceiling and specified completion dates. It therefore includes the single amount,
including all costs, which the Community must pay to secure the long-term lease of the fully renovated
building and the dates when the basic building will become available and for provisional acceptance of the
works not included therein. It also specifies the penalties which the Community will apply if the Belgian
Government and SA Berlaymont 2000 fail to meet these deadlines.

The agreement includes the specific guarantees provided by the Belgian Government and SA Berlaymont
2000 to protect the Community’s financial
interests in the event of suspected fraud in the award of
contracts for works, supplies and services or during their implementation.

C 58 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Honourable Member will see from the above that signature of the agreement of 13 November 2002
means that the Commission has direct contractual
links only with the Belgian Government and SA
Berlaymont 2000. Likewise, it is SA Berlaymont 2000, the party responsible for the renovation project,
which enters into contracts with the various companies doing the work.

Accordingly, as far as the Honourable Member’s first question is concerned, since the Commission is not at
this stage a party to the procedure being followed by the judge responsible for this case,
it has no
information about this enquiry, which is in any case subject to pre-trial confidentiality.

As far as the second question is concerned, the Commission considers that the fixed price and the penalties
for late delivery set out in the agreement referred to above fully safeguard the Union’s financial interest.
In addition, as noted above, on fraud, Article 22 of the agreement includes a commitment by the Belgian
Government and SA Berlaymont to do everything possible, in agreement with the Community, to secure
compensation for any damage or harm caused by fraud by third parties with which the Commission has
no contractual relationship and undertake to pay the Commission fifty per cent of any amount which they
recover through such action. In the light of the inquiry in progress and in line with Article 22 of the
agreement,
the
Community.

take the steps required to protect

the Commission will

the financial

interests of

The Honourable Member’s final question concerning failure to comply with deadlines for deliveries and the
penalties to be applied in such circumstances is covered by Articles 9 and 9a of the agreement, which set
out the commitments given to the Commission by the Belgian Government and SA Berlaymont 2000 as
regards the date of delivery of the renovated building and the penalties applicable if this is not respected.
The clauses on the deadlines and penalties in the contracts between SA Berlaymont 2000 and the
companies responsible for carrying out the work concern only the contractual relationships between those
parties.

(2004/C 58 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Methyl methacrylate (MMA): acrylic liquid monomer

Is the Commission aware that the acrylic liquid monomer, methyl methacrylate (MMA), is currently being
used in the solution for acrylic nails and is causing numerous allergic and damaging reactions to the users
of this product? Is the use of acrylic MMA banned in the Member States of the EU or is it being considered
for banning? If it is not being considered for banning, why not?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Methyl methacrylate is not listed in the inventory used in cosmetic products (1) but the Commission is
aware that it might be used in kits to sculpture nails on natural fingernails. Methyl methacrylate is not
regulated in an Annex to Council Directive 76/768/EEC (2).

However, the Directive states as a general principle that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage
to human health can be put on the market (Article 2 of the Directive). Therefore, cosmetic products can
only contain safe ingredients. Regarding an adequate safety assessment of cosmetic products, there is an
obligation for the manufacturer to keep information on its cosmetic products readily accessible for the
control authorities of the Member States (Article 7a of the Directive). This information must contain the
assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product, taking into consideration the general
toxicological profile of its ingredients and its chemical structure. Therefore, the possible allergenicity of the
ingredients needs to be taken into account in the safety assessment.