EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/558

(2004/C 88 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject: Romanian motorway project

The EU has recently threatened to defer Romania's accession if it does not succeed in combating corruption. One might hope that the Romanian Government had taken note, but there is evidence to suggest that the problems continue and are worsening. One specific example is a planned Transylvanian motorway that will destroy one of Europe's last remaining medieval landscapes without offering benefits except to those well-connected individuals who have acquired the land on which the motorway would be constructed. Furthermore, an EU-backed plan already exists to build a motorway from the Hungarian border across Romania, through Brasov, Transylvania's main city, and Bucharest, to the Black Sea. Consequently, the new scheme for a second motorway heading north from Brasov and running parallel with this road, a mere fifty miles away, then petering out meaninglessly just inside the Hungarian border, is completely superfluous. This project was not put out to tender. No environmental assessment or estimate of traffic volume was sought before it was approved, and the American company, Bechtel, was awarded the contract under an emergency ‘ordinance’ — a procedure specifically designed to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. There is also evidence to suggest that the land needed for the motorway was unfairly expropriated. A study by the Romanian Academic Society has argued that the EUR 3 billion needed for the Bechtel motorway would be sufficient to fund the rehabilitation of the entire street structure of Romania's 3 000 municipalities or to complete modernisation work for more than 3 500 km of national roads.

What is the Commission's position on the Bechtel motorway project? Would the Commission agree that the Romanian Government appears to have done very little to solve problems associated with corruption? Would it also agree that it is no one's interest to see this incomparable landscape and heritage destroyed forever by inefficient, unnecessary and corrupt projects?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The decision to derogate from Romania's public procurement rules, which are intended to implement the EU public procurement directives, and to award a contract for the construction of the Brasov-Cluj-Bors motorway without public tendering raises concerns about the Romanian government's commitment to competitive and transparent public procurement procedures. The Commission has asked Romania to provide further information so that it might fully assess the implications of this decision. Since there was no competitive and transparent tendering, the European Commission has already made it clear to the Romanian side that it will not provide any financial support for this project and that it will not support any International Financing Institution assistance for the construction of the motorway.

Regarding the fight against corruption, the Commission considers that open and transparent public procurement procedures are an important element thereof, as set out in its recent Communication on a comprehensive EU policy on corruption (1). The Commission therefore considers that the Romanian government's anti-corruption efforts should include a firm commitment to use open and transparent public procurement procedures and to abstain from introducing derogations in Romania's public procurement rules implementing the relevant EU directives.

More generally, international reports and surveys indicate that corruption in Romania remains a systemic problem that undermines the rule of law, restricts economic reform and development and plays a major role in deterring foreign direct investment. The Commission is aware of a number of measures taken by the Romanian administration during the last eighteen months in an attempt to address this situation: it adopted a revised National Action Plan against Corruption in December 2002; passed a package of anti-corruption legislation in April 2003 and in September 2002 created the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Office (PNA). These measures mean that an adequate legal framework now exists and sufficient human and financial resources have been committed in theory to allow for an effective fight against corruption. Given this situation, the continued lack of success in investigating high-level corruption raises questions as to the level of political support given to tackle this issue seriously.

(1) COM(2003) 317 final of 28.5.2003.