In our February article, The €900 million question: the Commission’s building sell-off and its consequences, Generation 2004 examined the Commission’s decision to sell 23 office buildings in Brussels for approximately €900 million and highlighted a number of questions regarding the long-term implications of this unprecedented real-estate transaction. 

Since then, public attention has increasingly focused on the sale itself and on reports concerning an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. While any such investigation must be allowed to proceed independently and without speculation, it should not distract from another equally important issue: what happens next? 

The sale of the buildings was only the first step. The real challenge lies in implementing the Commission’s office-space strategy over the coming years. 

For this reason, Generation 2004 has submitted a note to OIB requesting additional information on the analyses, assumptions and planning that underpin the project. 

From a real-estate transaction to an operational challenge 

Selling buildings is a relatively straightforward exercise. Ensuring that tens of thousands of staff continue to have adequate office space while buildings are vacated, renovated, repurposed or replaced is considerably more complex. 

The success of the strategy depends not on the sale price alone but on whether the Commission can maintain sufficient office capacity, avoid costly delays and continue to provide a functional working environment for staff. 

This naturally raises a number of questions. What analyses were conducted before the decision was taken? What assumptions were made regarding occupancy rates, teleworking patterns and future office-space needs? What risks were identified, and what measures were foreseen if events did not unfold according to plan? 

These are standard questions for any large-scale infrastructure or real-estate project. They are particularly relevant when the project affects a significant share of the Commission’s office portfolio. 

The missing piece: feasibility and risk assessment 

One of the central questions raised in our note concerns the existence of feasibility studies and risk assessments. 

Large organisations do not normally embark on projects of this magnitude without examining different scenarios, assessing risks and preparing contingency plans. Such exercises help decision-makers understand not only the expected benefits but also the potential costs of delays, unforeseen events or changing circumstances. 

Generation 2004 has therefore asked whether formal feasibility assessments were carried out before the sale and whether they included detailed evaluations of office-space availability throughout the transition period. 

Equally important is understanding how risks were assessed. What was considered the likelihood that planned office space would not be available on schedule? What operational consequences were identified? What mitigation measures were foreseen? 

Without this information, it is difficult for staff representatives to evaluate the robustness of the strategy or the assumptions on which it is based. 

Occupancy extensions and their costs 

Another issue concerns buildings that may continue to be occupied beyond the dates initially envisaged when the transaction was announced. 

Publicly available budget documents indicate that the Commission continues to incur significant expenditure linked to the use of certain buildings after their sale. This may be entirely justified from an operational perspective, but it raises legitimate questions regarding implementation and costs. 

In fact, the newly released Working Document VII provides an answer to these questions: the Commission is scheduled to pay €24.59 million in 2027 and another €25.62 million in 2028 under the line ‘Usufruct for staying longer’1. These multi-million-euro expenditures are required specifically to cover the prolonged use of seven of the sold buildings. 

Generation 2004 has therefore asked OIB to clarify which of the 23 buildings have required occupancy extensions, what circumstances led to those decisions and how the current situation compares with the original timetable. 

We have also requested information on the financial implications of these extensions, including payments already made, current monthly costs and projected expenditure in the coming months and years. 

This information is important not because delays necessarily indicate a problem, but because understanding the actual costs and consequences of implementation is essential for assessing the overall success of the project. 

Sale of buildings2:  

The contract for the sale of 23 buildings was signed on 29 April 2024 for an amount of EUR 900 000 000. The sale proceeds are used to:  

• cover the payment of residual debts associated with the buildings sold, without changing the payment schedule;  

• cover the prolongation of use of seven sold buildings; 

• acquire the new Conference Centre;  

• finance the occupation of new buildings.  

At the end of 2026, the balance of the sales revenue is expected to be EUR 437 496 526. The forecast of utilisation of sales revenue for the period 2027-2034 is detailed below.

 

Looking ahead 

The next two years are likely to be decisive. 

The Commission’s office-space strategy relies on a series of interdependent projects and assumptions. If all elements are delivered on schedule, the transition may proceed smoothly. If significant delays occur, however, additional costs and operational challenges could arise. 

Generation 2004 has therefore asked OIB to provide a clearer picture of the roadmap for the coming years, including planned relocations, office-space availability, identified risks and mitigation measures. 

Such information would allow staff and their representatives to better understand how the Commission intends to manage the transition and respond to potential challenges. 

A question of transparency 

At its core, this is not a debate about whether buildings should or should not have been sold. Reasonable people may hold different views on the Commission’s long-term real-estate strategy. 

What matters now is transparency. 

A project involving 23 buildings, hundreds of millions of euros and the working environment of a large part of the Commission’s workforce deserves clear communication and robust accountability. Staff should be able to understand not only the expected benefits of the strategy but also the risks, costs and contingency measures associated with its implementation. 

This is the objective of the note submitted by Generation 2004. 

As the project moves from the transaction phase to the implementation phase, we believe that a more detailed dialogue with staff representatives is both necessary and in everyone’s interest. 

The €900 million question is no longer only about the sale itself. 

It is about whether the Commission has a realistic, resilient and transparent plan for what comes next. 

Transparency is only the first step; accountability must follow. The Commission’s own budget documents already show that more than €50 million will be spent in 2027 and 2028 to prolong the occupation of seven buildings that have already been sold, while a significant part of the €900 million proceeds will also be used to finance the occupation of new premises in the years ahead. These additional costs may be justified by operational constraints, but they inevitably raise questions as to whether the original planning, feasibility studies and risk assessments were sufficiently robust. Staff and taxpayers are entitled to know whether the principles of sound financial management—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—were fully respected when decisions of this magnitude were taken. 

If it is ultimately established that inadequate planning, insufficient risk assessment or avoidable management decisions have led to significant additional expenditure, transparency alone will not be enough. Public institutions must also ensure accountability. Decisions involving hundreds of millions of euros and affecting thousands of staff cannot simply be regarded as unfortunate outcomes without consequences. Where shortcomings have resulted in avoidable financial losses, increased future rental costs or unnecessary expenditure, those responsible should be required to explain their decisions and, where appropriate, be held accountable. This is not only a matter of protecting the EU budget but also of maintaining trust in the Commission’s financial governance.