You are on page 1of 2

8.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/209

It falls to the national authorities to monitor respect for these provisions to ensure the correct application
of hygiene regulations by food business operators and, in the case referred to by the Honourable Member,
to verify whether the use of the name ‘bread’ for the products in question is in accordance with the
principles set out above.

(1) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.
(2) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109,
6.5.2000.

(2003/C 110 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/02


by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Environmental requirements and rules on the awarding of public contracts

The Commission has pointed out in a reasoned opinion that when Kalmar Länstrafik invited tenders for
bus services in 2001, there was a breach of the rules governing the awarding of public contracts. Kalmar
Länstrafik had also asked prospective tenderers to provide an environmental programme with their
documentation and had set requirements in terms of the development of staff skills. According to
newspaper reports, the Commission is questioning the criteria established by Kalmar Länstrafik on the
grounds that they concern the characteristics of the bus companies as such and not just the service to be
purchased.

The Court of Justice has ruled in case C-513/99, which concerns a contract awarded by the municipality of
Helsinki for bus transport services, that a contracting authority may take environmental criteria into
consideration.

Did the Commission take account of the judgment in case C-513/99 before the reasoned opinion was sent
to Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

In the Commission’s view environmental programs of tenderers may be used as criteria for selecting
suitable tenderers on the condition that those programs have an impact on the capacity of a company (for
example on its equipment and technicians) to execute a public contract with environmental
requirements (1).

The reasoned opinion referred to in the written question addresses indeed the fact that the contracting
entity in question has used environmental programmes at the award stage of a public procurement
contract although, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (2), they may only be used at the stage
of the procedure where suitable candidates are selected.

The judgement of the Court of Justice of 17 September 2002 in the case C-513/99 (Stagecoach Finland),
of which the Commission is well aware, has not changed the principle of the separation of selection and
award criteria. The Court has consistently maintained that award criteria only aim at identifying the most
economically advantageous tender and have therefore to be linked to the subject matter of the contract
and not to the quality/features of the service provider as such. Indeed, in the above mentioned judgement
the criteria of level of nitrogen oxide emissions and the noise level of buses, which were considered as
legitimate award criteria, were related to characteristics of the vehicle fleet and not to the operator’s
capacities.
C 110 E/210 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.2003

The judgement did therefore not affect the Commission’s reasoning with regard to the Kalmar Länstrafik
AB:s tendering procedure. Accordingly, the Commission decided to issue a reasoned opinion in the above
mentioned case.

(1) The Commission has on 4.7.2001 adopted an interpretative communication on the possibilities for integrating
environmental considerations into public procurement, which sets out how to buy according to Community law,
OJ C 333, 28.11.2001.
(2) See the ECJ judgement of 20 September 1988 in the case C-31/87 (Beentjes).

(2003/C 110 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3379/02


by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Occupation of the Berlaymont building  cost and timing

There have been various reports in the press to the effect that the Belgian state and the EU have reached
agreement on the reoccupation of the Berlaymont building. The EU is to pay the sum of euro 545 million
to Belgium, and the Commission  according to the Belgian Minister Daems  should be able to move
into the building at the end of 2003. Since the Commission has additional requirements regarding
adjustments to allow for multimedia use, this date will certainly not be met. In the event of further delay
the Belgian state will have to pay a penalty of at least EUR 15 million. This, together with all the other
expenditure, including the cost of asbestos removal and rents for other buildings, would amount to a total
of euro 1,4 billion. However, the press reports are extremely vague.

Could the Commission, therefore, give a complete and accurate account of the agreement that has been
reached and say when the Commission’s move to the Berlaymont is planned to take place?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

As the Honourable Member will know, in the time since he tabled his question, the Member of the
Commission in charge of the Administrative reform has presented the Communication from the
Commission to Parliament on the future of the Berlaymont building to a joint session of the Committee
on Budgets (COBU) and of the Committee on Budget Control (COCOBU) on 21 October 2002. At that
meeting, the Member of the Commission in charge of the Administrative reform was able to give
Honourable Members the outline of the contractual agreement between the Commission and the Belgian
Government, and much of the detail of the conditions relating to the acquisition of the Berlaymont. He
also presented the agreement publicly at a joint press conference with the Minister of Public Works, Rik
Daems, on 23 October 2002.

As the Communication specifies, the agreement between Belgium, Berlaymont 2000 and the Commission
includes:

 A fixed price of EUR 552 879 207 which is composed of EUR 503 318 502 for the Commission’s
share in the renovation cost and EUR 49 578 705 for the value of the building before renovation
(a figure which was set in 1997 at BEF 2 billion). The interest rate applicable is 5,37 %. The first
annual payment will therefore be EUR 31 891 235, which will be stepped up by 2 % for consecutive
annual payments over the subsequent years of purchase.

 A fixed delivery date of 31 December 2003 for the basic building and of 31 March 2004 and 30 June
2004 for the Commission’s meeting room and the multimedia equipment, respectively.

 Specific penalties for each of the three deadlines if they are not met: the Commission will cease
payment for the rent of the Berlaymont building (EUR 15,4 million) if it is not ready for occupation
on 1 January 2004. If the deadline of 31 March 2004 is not met the annual instalment will be
reduced pro rata for the months of delay from the first day of delay (this reduction would amount to
EUR 221 000 per month). The same arrangement applies for the deadline of 30 June 2004. These
penalties would be cumulative.