The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published the information it submitted to the European Commission in support of its assessment of the 19 Member States' bids to host the Agency. This decision comes following the recent publication of isolated pieces of information circulating in the press in order to complete the picture and set the record straight.
In view of the Agency's mandate to protect public health in Europe, EMA has undertaken a thorough analysis of the bids against the criteria agreed by the EU27. This is important to inform EMA’s efforts to prepare for the move.
To ensure the Agency remains operational and able to deliver on its mission after its relocation, the accessibility of the new seat for delegates and experts and staff retention are key, supported by adequate premises and facilities.
The information provided in the documents published today (annexes) is composed of two different parts and is based on different methodologies.
The first part, referred to recently in the press (A1-A3 below), relates to the technical assessment on the proposed building(s) with indicated layout and facilities and the relocation plan. This assessment was requested by the Commission and was based solely on the information provided in the offers (either available in the public offer or confidential documents/information for which access to EMA was granted).
The second part (B1-B3 below) consists of a review carried out by EMA of the information related to other criteria including accessibility of the location (criterion 2), existence of adequate education facilities (criterion 3), appropriate access to the labour market, social security and medical care (criterion 4) and business continuity (criterion 5).
Based on the Agency's long experience, EMA looked at each of the criteria from various aspects and scored them according to how well they meet EMA’s requirements and how they might impact the continuity of EMA's operations. As described in the methodology, EMA’s review is not only based on the information provided in the public offers but also on other publicly available information (Annex B3).
Two examples to explain EMA's approach: regarding the accessibility of the location (criterion 2), the close proximity of hotels is an important factor due to the long working sessions at the Agency ending late in the evening. EMA therefore looked at the number of hotels in walking distance of the future premises. Regarding the information provided on airports close to the location, ‘close to the location' was not further specified. For the sake of consistency across all Member States' bids, EMA looked at the availability of flights at all airports identified in the International Air Transport Association (IATA) classification list linked to the candidate host city.
EMA expects that the publication of this information will be useful for Member States when deciding on a suitable new host city and thereby ensuring that the Agency will be fully operational during and after its relocation.
The two annexes include the following documents:
A1: Summary of EMA technical comments (on the building)
A2: EMA technical comments - detailed grid (on the building)
A3: EMA technical comments - applied methodology (on the building)
B1: Summary of EMA contributions (on other criteria)
B2: Other criteria - detailed grid
B3: EMA comments on other criteria applied methodology