To go behind the scenes at the Pierre-Mauroy stadium, there are two methods: take part in the tours organized this summer, or attend a hearing at the Lille administrative court. Thus, the metropolis of Lille (Mel) and the construction giant Eiffage met on Tuesday before the administrative judges concerning a dispute of several tens of millions of euros, says the information site Médiacités. This hearing punctuated eight years of proceedings for a file which comprises no less than 6,500 pages.
The starting point of this financial confusion is in the public-private partnership signed, at the turn of the 2010s, between Eiffage and Mel for the construction of a Grand Stade in Villeneuve d’Ascq, near Lille. The principle is simple: the private builder chosen to build and manage the enclosure advances the funds and, each year, the project owner community pays a fee to reimburse.
A very complex public-private partnership
The PPP contract signed between the two parties provides for the end of reimbursement at 2043, the date on which the metropolis will become the owner of the premises. However, the terms of this PPP are so complex that the best lawyers get lost. What is easier to understand is that the Eiffage company and its subsidiary Elisa, which manages what has become the Pierre-Mauroy stadium, underestimated the cost of the site, as pointed out in 2017 by the Regional Chamber of Accounts.
Especially since the delivery of the building in October 2012, Mel is reluctant to pay certain parts of the fee to lower the annual bill. A typical example of a financial disagreement: the installation, not originally planned, of light therapy to maintain the lawn.
Initially, Eiffage claimed nearly 145 million euros in arrears. Tuesday, before the judges, the request was finally limited to 45 million, abandoning the real estate valuation aspect of the case. For his part, the public rapporteur, whose opinion is often followed by the judges, reduced the “debt” of the Mel towards Eiffage to around 30 million euros. Not including interest. The administrative court must render its decision at the end of August.