Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 42kWORD 18k
7 March 2019
E-001254-19
Question for written answer E-001254-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Raffaele Fitto (ECR) , Remo Sernagiotto (ECR) , Stefano Maullu (ECR) , Innocenzo Leontini (ECR)

 Subject:  EMA: lease for London headquarters

On 20 February 2019, the High Court of Justice in London ordered the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay Canary Wharf T1 Limited the full amount remaining due under the lease for the Agency’s present London headquarters, that is to say, EUR 465 million. The reason is that the lease, which was concluded in 2014 and was supposed to expire in 2039, has no exit clause.

In other words, the EMA is being obliged, on account of the court ruling, to pay EUR 465 million for the rental of premises that it will no longer be using, given that its offices are already in the process of being transferred to the temporary headquarters in Amsterdam.

1. Bearing in mind the huge sum which, because of the abovementioned ruling, the EMA will have to pay and which will inevitably also entail an expense to European taxpayers, what does the Commission think it should do to avert a waste of public money on this scale?

2. How was it that such a costly and important lease did not contain any exit clause?

3. In the interests of greater transparency, what will the Commission do to shed full light on the facts and hence establish where the blame lies for this financial/revenue loss?

Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 2 April 2019Legal notice