WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/01

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE)and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Measures by the Greek authorities to tackle substandard work

The Commission has yet to reply to Written Question (P-2890/01(1)) on the precise proportion of substandard work in public works in Greece. In a reply to a previous question (E-2783/99(2)) the Commission stated that the findings show that 52 % of the projects are in order or have minor defects which the contractors will rectify (project category 1); 45 % of the projects have major defects which do not have safety implications but which will entail higher maintenance costs: these additional costs must be deducted from payments to the contractors concerned (project category 2); 3 % of the projects have serious defects which cannot be rectified: the contractors will have to redo these projects in full or in part and at their own expense (project category 3).

In the same reply the Commission also announced that the Ministry of Economic Affairs as the managing authority for the Community Support Framework had sent the 1 122 individual reports drawn up by ESPEL in respect of projects with quality defects to the public authorities managing the projects concerned and the chairmen of the respective monitoring committees, asking them to take the action provided for by law. In 478 cases falling within project categories 2 and 3 referred to above, the Ministry of Economic Affairs submitted the files to the public works inspectorate. Lastly, the 30 cases falling within category 3 were sent direct to the public prosecutor's office. Finally the Commission stated that it would ask for detailed information on the practical action taken in each case i.e. the economic, administrative or other penalties imposed.

Given that the attitude of the Greek authorities to this problem is a particularly serious issue, will the Commission say:

1. Has it received information about the practical action taken in the cases falling within categories 2 and 3 referred to above? Can it say in respect of which projects economic, administrative or other penalties have been imposed, and when? Is it satisfied with the way the Greek authorities have handled the matter?

2. Have the Greek authorities forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office any communication on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94(3) of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field? If not, what will be the consequences and what measures does it intend to take?

(1) See page 1.

(2) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 43.

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions P-2890/01 and E-3197/01given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Members that, despite the reminder sent on 2 July, it has not yet received an answer to its letter of 29 January 2001 to the Greek authorities asking for precise information on action taken on files in categories 2 and 3 and any financial, administrative or other penalties imposed.

The Commission will repeat its request to those authorities and in all cases undertake a detailed examination of these files when the Community support framework for 1994-1999 is closed.

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the answer which the Commission gave to Written Question E-1894/01 by Mr Hatzidakis(1) concerning communications by the Greek authorities under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2). Some of the additional information requested has meanwhile been received under Article 5 of that Regulation.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.