The appeal presented by the Municipality of Milan on the EMA headquarters is "manifestly inadmissible". This was stated by the European Council in a 26-page document in which it rejected Milan's request for a suspension on the decision to move the headquarters of the Medicines Agency to Amsterdam.
The reply from the Municipality of Milan was immediate, according to which the appeal "is founded and admissible, as the court of the European Union itself has recognised".
According to the European Council, Milan's first mistake would be precisely having presented an appeal against the "decision of the Council of the European Union" given that the decision was taken “by the representatives of the member states who therefore acted not as members of the Council, but as representatives of their governments, thus collectively exercising the powers of the member states".
Not only that,” the fact that some member states have decided to associate administrations
of the cities applying for the preparation of the bids - reads the observations of the Council - does not alter the legal fact, which sees these entities as mere third parties of the procedure". The legal service of the EU Council therefore considers that the request for precautionary suspension requested by Milan on the decision to assign the headquarters of the EMA to Amsterdam must be "rejected due to manifest inadmissibility of the main application".
The ending of the defense statement is hard»: the EU Council says it does not being able to "accept the grotesque representation" that the Municipality of Milan"offers of the selection procedure" of the EMA headquarters.
But Milan is not there. The lawyer who presented the appeals to the EU courts and the European Court of Justice told Ansa that the appeal "is founded and admissible, as the European Union court itself has recognised".
The EU Council “rejects nothing because it does not have the power to do so, just as it has no power to declare it inadmissible". If the appeal presented by the Municipality of Milan "were truly inadmissible - explains the lawyer Francesco Sciaudone, Managing partner of Grimaldi Studio Legale who handled the administration's appeals - the court would have already let it be known, but that was not the case" . The Council “defends itself to justify an unfortunate situation which was created – the lawyer specified again – because the selection concerned a Dutch offer modified several times, as we know well by now”.
At the same juncture, it should be remembered that the control inspection of the Environment commission of the European Parliament took place this morning in Amsterdam, at the Spark Building, the temporary headquarters that the Dutch have chosen for the EMA.
According to what was stated by Giovanni La Via, head of the delegation: “It is an intense moment, we have asked a lot of questions and there are not many answers. They always stop at what is the offer made. We actually found out that the venue adjustments won't include a tender, i.e. a call for tenders, and they think they can do it in time. It also emerged that there is no alternative plan. If the works are not ready in time, there is no alternative”.
We recall that from the documents declassified in recent days, chand two different temporary locations were indicated in the candidacy dossier presented by Amsterdam, then abandoned due to their "clear inadequacy", from those chosen after the award.
“For the definitive headquarters the call for tenders is still far from being ready – explained La Via – and they say that the works should start on 1st June, but as there is no call for tenders yet, it is always a bit difficult for us. In the afternoon we will see the headquarters of the Vivaldi Building (the building that should later house the EMA, currently non-existent, ed.) and everything that will need to be done to have an efficient headquarters for EMA in that place".
The EU therefore crosses its fingers, dubiously hoping that Amsterdam will be able to keep its promises. For Milan now, there seems to be little hope.
