The present state	On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, the jury decided on the outcome of phase 2 of the project competition for the European Patent Office – Branch at The Hague. The authors of the five awarded proposals are: 1st prize Xaveer De Geyter Architects, Brussels 2nd prize MVRDV, Rotterdam 3rd prize Henning Larsens Tegnestue A/S, Copenhagen 4th prize Hascher Jehle Architektur, Berlin 5th prize Itten Brechbühl-Venhoeven C.S., Bern/Amsterdam For further informationen please go to 'results'. On Monday, June 21, 2004, the jury decided on the outcome of phase 1 of the project competition. In total, 46 design proposals had been submitted by a field of highly qualified competitors. Guided by the high level of quality apparent from the entries and aware of the enormous efforts taken by each competitor, after an intensive discussion the jury selected 10 design proposals for further development. The authors of these proposals are: Burckhardt+Partner AG, Zurich COOP Himmelb(l)au, Vienna e 2 a / eckert eckert architekten ag, Zurich Xaveer De Geyter Architects, Brussels Architectenbureau Micha de Haas, Amsterdam Hascher Jehle Architektur, Berlin IttenBrechbühl-Venhoeven C.S., Bern/Amsterdam Henning Larsens Tegnestue A/S, Copenhagen MVRDV, Rotterdam Weber + Hofer AG, Zurich Following the further design development of the award-winning proposals, the project was halted. In 2012, it was relaunched with a new contract award procedure for consortia of architects and building companies. The TBI Group with architects Jean Nouvel and Dam & Partners Architecten won the contract award. Construction of the building began in 2014.
Sponsor of the competition	The European Patent Organisation (EPO) through the European Patent Office, Munich, Germany.
Site	The branch at The Hague is situated on a 9.5 ha lot at Rijswijk, an independent municipality near The Hague. Presently the site is built up with a complex made up of three partial complexes erected, transformed and combined with each other in various stages
Project content	It is intended to replace some of the buildings with a new structure of approx. 100,000 sqm in gross area housing the offices of approx. 1,600 staff and ancillary spaces.
Procedure	International project competition, according to the awarding directives in the financial rules of the EPO, which have been agreed upon by all 27 member states. The competition will be conducted in two stages, the second stage to be conducted cooperatively. During the first stage with approx. 50 competitors, the competition is anonymous, while in the second stage with approx. 12 competitors anonymity will be lifted. The two-stage competition will be preceded by an international open pre-qualification procedure. The Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA) participated in an advisory role in the invitation's preparation.
Jury	Architectural jurors: Prof. Marc Angélil, Zurich/Los Angeles Prof. Max Bächer, Darmstadt Donald Bates, London Prof. Francoise-Hélène Jourda, Paris Prof. Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, Milan Bob van Reeth, Brussels Jeroen van Schooten, Amsterdam Prof. Anders Wilhelmson, Stockholm Prof. Elia Zenghelis, Athens/Brussels Alternate Architectural jurors: Tanja Concko, Amsterdam Dominique Lyon, Paris Prof. Kirsten Schemel, Berlin Technical jurors: Dr. Roland Grossenbacher, Chairman of the administrative council of the EPO, Bern Dr. Friedrich Sohs, Chairman of the EPO building committee, Vienna Dr. h.c. Ingo Kober, President of the European Patent Office, Munich Lionel Baranes Vice-president DG 1 European Patent Office, The Hague Curt Edfjäll Vice-president DG 4 European Patent Office, Munich Philippe Couckuyt, Staff representative, European Patent Office, The Hague Harry Geijzers, Director Netherlands Industrial Property Office (NIPO), The Hague Ineke van der Wel-Markerink, Mayor of the Municipality of Rijswijk Alternate Technical jurors: Alison Brimelow, Deputy-Chair of the Administrative Council of the EPO, Newport, South Wales Rolf-Dieter Katsch, Deputy-Chair of the EPO building committee, Bonn Prof. Alain Pompidou, designated president of the European Patent Office, Paris Pantelis Kyriakides, Vice-president DG 2 European Patent Office, Munich Hermann Nehrdich, PD, European Patent Office, The Hague Jesus Areso y Salinas, Staff representative, European Patent Office, The Hague Adrie Kerkvliet, Head of Department Netherlands Industrial Property Office (NIPO), The Hague Wouter van Putten, Municipality of Rijswijk, Alderman
Prizes and fees	The total amount of fees and prizes is 514,000 EUR in the event of 12 participants in the second stage. Every second-stage participant submitting an entry that can be examined will receive a fee of Euro 20,000 and, on request, the travel expenses of two persons attending the second-stage participants' colloquium will be reimbursed according to the EPO-regulations. A total net amount of Euro 274,000 is available for prizes which will be divided as follows, unless the jury decides unanimously a different partition: 1st prize: Euro 96,000.00 2nd prize: Euro 71,000.00 3rd prize: Euro 52,000.00 4th prize: Euro 33,000.00 5th prize: Euro 22,000.00 Any other costs will not be reimbursed.
Participants	The competition is conducted as a project competition open to a limited extent and preceded by an application procedure. On March 22, 2004 approx. 50 architectural practices will be admitted as participants. Only selected architects and their practices are eligible to submit entries.
Eligibility	Eligible for participation are natural persons who on the day of the publication of this invitation are entitled to use the occupational title 'Architect' in their country of residence. In the case that in their country of residence no legal requirements exist concerning the use of the occupational title 'Architect', then a degree or similar proof of ability will be acceptable, provided that it can be recognized under the requirements listed in the 85/384/EEC and 89/48/EEC guidelines. Eligible for participation are also design teams formed of natural persons, legal entities whose statutory goals comprise planning activities that are relevant to the competition task, and consortia formed of such legal entities. In the case of design teams composed of natural persons, evidence must be furnished for each team member. Multiple applications for participation will result in rejection. Legal entities must name an authorized representative who will be responsible for rendering the services that are the object of the competition. The authorized representative as well as the responsible author or authors of the competition entry must meet the requirements applying to natural persons in their capacity as competitors. Information provided on the Declaration of Authorship form is considered legally binding. Every participant is required to individually clarify his or her eligibility for participation. Eligibility for participation will be rechecked after the competitors have been selected. Considering the competition requirements, it is recommended that design proposals be prepared with the support of landscape architects and mechanical building services engineers.
Impediments to participation	Ineligible to participation are those who, on account of their involvement in the preparation or conduct of the competition, would be liable to receive preferential treatment or might be in a position to influence the jury's decision. This applies in particular to the members of the jury, experts, preliminary examiners and guests, their spouses, first- or second-degree relatives or in-laws, their permanent business or project partners and the immediate superiors and collaborators of the aforesaid. Members of the promoter's staff, employees and other permanent collaborators of participants and those who, up to the date of publication of this competition, worked for them may only participate if they were not directly involved with the task set for the competition. Ineligible to participation are the partners and members of the representational or supervisory bodies of companies or partnerships participating in the competition. A participant's non-permanent collaborators that were involved in the preparation of a competition entry as well as members of design teams are ineligible to independent participation. Ineligible to participation are also those whose business interest in the object of the competition exceeds the mere rendering of the planning services required, if this is liable to restrict competition as to the rendering of the services required for the realisation of the competition's objective. Candidates with economic ties to a building contracting company may avoid non-admittance by procuring the company's undertaking not to bid for the contract for the construction of the competition project.
Further commissioning	The jury will emit a recommendation as to the commission for the project. Within the framework of the project's further development and taking into consideration the jury's recommendation, it is intended to commission one of the prize winners according to the Dutch Standard Conditions Legal Relationship Client-Architect 1997 (Standaard Voorwaarden Rechtsverhouding Opdrachtgever-Architect 1997 - short term: SR 1997), version of January 2004, with at least the services stage 1 and 2 and parts of stage 3, provided that the project will be implemented and further provided that in the promoter's opinion one of the prize winners, whose entry complies with budgetary restraints, can guarantee the proper execution of the services to be rendered. It is intended to award a contract for the services pertaining to general project planning. In order to assure the proper execution of the services to be rendered, the prize-winner may, in agreement with the promoter, form a team with other professionals meeting the requirements for participation in the competition. If the EPO intends to comply with the jury's recommendation while the prize-winning project's author, however, is not sufficiently experienced in the planning of construction work of a scale comparable to that of the competition task, the EPO may demand that a planning team be formed with a sufficiently experienced architectural practice to be selected jointly by the EPO and the prize-winner. The contract governing the formation of this team must provide that it is the prize-winner alone who has the say in matters of planning and design flair.