# CE2004084EN.01047101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/471 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/471

---

(2004/C 84 E/0545)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Criticism of the active involvement of the Flemish government in environmental rehabilitation, allegedly in breach of the promotion of free competition

Subject:

| 1. | On 16 October 2002 the Commission made a complaint against the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner, such as Vlaamse Milieuholding, Aquafin NV (water treatment), Indaver (industrial and household waste), Vlaamse Afvalrecuperatiemaatschappij (recycling) and Hooge Maey's environmental rehabilitation company in Antwerp, which implement 90 % of Flemish environmental policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 October 2002 the Commission made a complaint against the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner, such as Vlaamse Milieuholding, Aquafin NV (water treatment), Indaver (industrial and household waste), Vlaamse Afvalrecuperatiemaatschappij (recycling) and Hooge Maey's environmental rehabilitation company in Antwerp, which implement 90 % of Flemish environmental policy?

| 2. | Is Herman Matthijs, profession of economics at the Free Universities Brussels, correct in saying that the United Kingdom is the only EU Member State to satisfy the Commission's vision of the liberalisation of services of general interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Herman Matthijs, profession of economics at the Free Universities Brussels, correct in saying that the United Kingdom is the only EU Member State to satisfy the Commission's vision of the liberalisation of services of general interest?

| 3. | Is the Commission considering bringing proceedings in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which is likely to result in large fines having to be paid at the expense of the EUR 7,5 billion budgeted for improved water treatment in Flanders, because other European companies were unable to participate in the public invitation to tender after the contracts awarded by the Flemish government? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission considering bringing proceedings in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which is likely to result in large fines having to be paid at the expense of the EUR 7,5 billion budgeted for improved water treatment in Flanders, because other European companies were unable to participate in the public invitation to tender after the contracts awarded by the Flemish government?

| 4. | Is the Commission in discussions with the Flemish government with a view to finding other solutions? What has been the outcome? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission in discussions with the Flemish government with a view to finding other solutions? What has been the outcome?

Sources: De Standard, 9 and 10 April 2003, De Morgen, 10 April 2003, De Financiëel Economische Tijd, 10 April 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

(17 June 2003)

| 1. | By letter of formal notice of 16 October 2002, the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without a priori invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. Contrary to what the Honourable Member seems to say, the Commission's complaint did not therefore relate to ‘the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By letter of formal notice of 16 October 2002, the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without a priori invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. Contrary to what the Honourable Member seems to say, the Commission's complaint did not therefore relate to ‘the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner’.

| 2. | The Commission takes no responsibility for what the Honourable Member says. It has, on a number of occasions (1), voiced the opinion that services of general interest play a key role in the development of a European social model and that the Member States remain free to define services of general interest and how to organise them. However, it has to be ensured that any restrictions to applying the rules of the EC Treaty, and particularly restrictions on competition and limitations of the internal market freedoms, do not exceed what is strictly necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the general interest mission. In particular, when the Member States decide to entrust the management of such services to a third party, the choice of third party should be made in accordance with the rules and principles of Community public procurement law. In this context, it should be pointed out that the College has recently adopted a Green Paper on services of general interest (Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest), which relays the Commission's thoughts on this matter and invites all interested parties to submit their opinions and suggestions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission takes no responsibility for what the Honourable Member says. It has, on a number of occasions (1), voiced the opinion that services of general interest play a key role in the development of a European social model and that the Member States remain free to define services of general interest and how to organise them. However, it has to be ensured that any restrictions to applying the rules of the EC Treaty, and particularly restrictions on competition and limitations of the internal market freedoms, do not exceed what is strictly necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the general interest mission. In particular, when the Member States decide to entrust the management of such services to a third party, the choice of third party should be made in accordance with the rules and principles of Community public procurement law. In this context, it should be pointed out that the College has recently adopted a Green Paper on services of general interest (Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest), which relays the Commission's thoughts on this matter and invites all interested parties to submit their opinions and suggestions.

1

| 3. | The proceedings initiated by the Commission against the Belgian State, which are mentioned by the Honourable Member, are currently still at the pre-litigation stage. The arguments put forward by both parties form the subject of a dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities. In any event, the Community public procurement legislation does not make it possible for the Commission to impose fines at its own initiative on Member States for failure to comply with the applicable provisions. As Community public procurement law stands at present, it is only through referral to the Court under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) that the Court may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on a Member State which does not comply with one of its judgments. However, as stated above, the proceedings initiated by the Commission in this instance are currently only at the pre-litigation stage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The proceedings initiated by the Commission against the Belgian State, which are mentioned by the Honourable Member, are currently still at the pre-litigation stage. The arguments put forward by both parties form the subject of a dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities. In any event, the Community public procurement legislation does not make it possible for the Commission to impose fines at its own initiative on Member States for failure to comply with the applicable provisions. As Community public procurement law stands at present, it is only through referral to the Court under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) that the Court may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on a Member State which does not comply with one of its judgments. However, as stated above, the proceedings initiated by the Commission in this instance are currently only at the pre-litigation stage.

| 4. | As the dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities is still being conducted, it would be premature to make any pronouncements about what the outcome might be. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As the dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities is still being conducted, it would be premature to make any pronouncements about what the outcome might be.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 26.9.1996 and OJ C 17, 19.1.2001.

1

---