Strasbourg, a pivotal city located between France and Germany, was the obvious choice for the home of the Council of Europe (1949). When it came to deciding where the ECSC would have its seat, the task was a lot tougher, yet the treaty had been signed several months previously. The ministers met in July 1952. Paris, Strasbourg, The Hague, Saarbrücken and Turin were debated, one by one. A consensus arose in favour of Brussels, with the exception of the Belgian Foreign Minister, Paul Van Zeeland, who favoured Liège. At 3 o’clock in the morning, the head of the Luxembourg government, Joseph Bech, proposed that the High Authority take up temporary residence in the capital of the Grand Duchy.
The EEC and Euratom treaties entered into force on 1 January 1958. Back then, the Belgian capital had awoken from its almost provincial slumber and was preparing to host the World Fair. The decision in favour of Brussels been a complicated one: the Italians wanted Milan to be chosen, then Paris, as did the French; the Germans wanted Strasbourg or Brussels, the latter enjoying the staunch support of all three Benelux countries. It occupied a fairly central position in the Europe of Six and boasted an international airport. The consensus was reached. This meant that the Commissions of both treaties would be working in Brussels for the time being, where the ministers would also meet and the Economic and Social Committee would be set up. The Grand Duchy secured a deal whereby the Council meetings in April, June and October would be held in Luxembourg, which had been confirmed as the future site of the Court of Justice. As for the Parliamentary Assembly to be shared by the three Communities, this would meet in Strasbourg, while its secretariat general would be in Luxembourg.
The first civil servants of the EEC worked in the administrative premises on rue Belliard in Brussels before moving into a new building on the avenue de la Joyeuse Entrée. The idea of locating the European institutions on the Heysel plateau had been abandoned. In late 1958, the Belgian State purchased the former convent of the Dames du Berlaymont, which was demolished and replaced with an enormous building big enough to house 3000 workers.
In accordance with the Treaty of Brussels of 8 April 1965 and the decision on the seats of the institutions taken on the same day, the executive bodies of the three Communities merged, leading to a single Council and a single Commission, with their provisional seats in Brussels. By way of compensation, Luxembourg would become the home of the European Investment Bank and various inter-institutional services (Eurostat, OPOCE, etc) — to be joined by the Court of Auditors in 1977.
In January 1967, accordingly, the staff of the former High Authority of the ECSC left Luxembourg for Brussels, where the stock of Community buildings would soon added to by the ‘Charlemagne’ building and then the ‘Berlaymont’, which was completed in 1969. These construction projects ruined the look of an entire neighbourhood and came in for criticism from local town planners and architects; had the bricks and mortar of Brussels not suffered enough? The photo of the ‘Berlaymont’ is to this day still frequently used by the media to illustrate ‘the Europe of Brussels’.
The accessions of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal to the EEC together with the extra competences conferred upon the Community institutions by the treaties lead to increased need for office space, in the European quarter and beyond.
On 12 December 1992, what had been a temporary plan for several decades became permanent in a decision of the European Council meeting in Edinburgh. Brussels became the official seat of the Commission, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, additional plenary sessions (all those over and above the figure of twelve) of the European Parliament and all meetings of its committees. These provisions were included as annexes to the Treaty of Maastricht, which also instituted the Committee of the Regions, which has also had its seat in Brussels since 1994. Therefore, and from 1992 in particular, the title ‘Capital of Europe’ has been rightfully held by Brussels. Furthermore, at the European Council of Nice (December 2000), it was agreed that following the next wave of accessions of 2004, all informal meetings of the European Council would be held in Brussels.
The new real estate initiatives illustrated this growing tendency. The construction of a major conference centre, which began on the site of the Brussels-Luxembourg railway station in the late 1980s, ended up being bought by the European Parliament in 1993 to give it a large enough meeting place (the ‘Caprice des dieux’). Furthermore, the completion of the ‘Justus Lipsius’ building (1989-1995) met the needs of the Council of the EU, which was starting to outgrow the ‘Charlemagne’. This was followed, by means of the partial amputation of the former ‘Résidence Palace’, by the bold, luminous cube-shaped ‘Europa’ building, which was inaugurated at the beginning of 2017 (see EUROPE 11684/27). It now hosts the meetings of the Council of the EU and, in particular, those of the European Council, serving also as the offices of its President.
As Brussels is also home to NATO, the ACP, various offices of the United Nations, 300 embassies or diplomatic missions and a similar number of regional or local representations, its total number of international civil servants can be estimated at 60,000, with a further 50,000 lobbyists living and working there. Tourism took off again following the pandemic (9.4 million overnight visitors in 2023). The consequences of this international dimension account for 20% of the regional economy. The city’s cosmopolitanism has constantly followed an upward curve: of its 1.24 million inhabitants, 37% are non-Belgians. With 180 nationalities represented, the number of languages spoken in the city has been estimated at around 100. This diversity is very easy to see during public events, or simply by taking the train or Metro.
Despite all these positive elements, it would be wrong to deduce that the overall picture is entirely idyllic. Quite the reverse: the Brussels Capital Region is currently experiencing a severe multifaceted crisis which is starting to pique the interest of the international press. A deep dive into its background is necessary to understand the failures of the city’s governance. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit