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
4 February 2018
P-000652-18
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Massimiliano Salini (PPE)

 Subject:  Location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency

Following the Brexit vote, plans had to be made to transfer the two European agencies currently located in the UK, one of them being the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Nineteen cities applied to host the agency. The Commission carried out an initial assessment of the bids and then referred the matter to the Council for a final decision. After three votes, however, the Council had still not reached a final decision. A coin was then tossed to settle the matter between the two cities still in competition, with the result that Amsterdam was chosen as the new seat of the EMA.

Given that the buildings which are to house the EMA in Amsterdam are not only not ready, a state of affairs which will necessitate a double removal and, hence, additional costs, but it would appear that they will not even be ready by the date given in the Netherlands Government’s bid, did the Commission, when assessing the technical and scientific aspects of the bids, consider all the documents submitted by the candidate cities, so that the EU governments could take a decision in full knowledge of the facts?

Did the Commission check the accuracy of the information contained in the bids?

Has the Commission estimated the cost of the double removal?

Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 7 February 2018Legal notice