Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92001E001117

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Renovation of the Berlaymont building.

    OJ C 350E, 11.12.2001, p. 73–74 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    European Parliament's website

    92001E1117

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Renovation of the Berlaymont building.

    Official Journal 350 E , 11/12/2001 P. 0073 - 0074


    WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01

    by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

    (6 April 2001)

    Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building

    The Commission's headquarters in the Berlaymont building has been out of use for several years. Its renovation was in view of future use. How much has the Commission committed itself to paying for the renovations and how will this amount be taken into account in the rents charged on the building?

    Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

    (21 June 2001)

    The Berlaymont Building was vacated by the European Commission in 1991 when proof was provided that the condition of the asbestos used in its construction had deteriorated to the point where it breached safety requirements.

    As already pointed out in the reply to Written Question E-936/01 by Mr Sjöstedt(1), the Commission has not signed any contract relating to the Berlaymont building. In July 1997 the Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A. Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice. The costs of renovating the building after removal of the asbestos were estimated to be 324 million.

    The provision mentioned above retains its validity. Meanwhile, the Commission and the Belgian Government are currently re-examining the Memorandum of Understanding with a view to establishing a contract which fixes the final cost of the building, precisely describes the work covered by the contract, and sets down a firm delivery date.

    (1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.

    Top