WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3886/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Council. Misuse of EU funds in Russia
Date: 1997-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN BLADEL
Subjects: EU aid, Netherlands, Russia, building subsidy, financial aid, fraud, supermarket, technical cooperation

22. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 196/29

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 1998)

The Commission considers that when the proposed directive enters into force manufacturers should benefit from
economies in the costs connected with obtaining the approval of transportable pressure equipment. Indeed, the
manufacturers of this equipment will no longer have to obtain approval in all the Member States, since approval
and marking in only one Member State will be sufficient to allow the marketing of equipment and use in all the
Member States.

With regard to the effects of these savings on the price of this equipment, while no formal guarantee can be given
that the savings will be passed on, the Commission is convinced that market forces will have this effect.

(98/C 196/41)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3886/97

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(5 December 1997)

Subject: Misuse of EU funds in Russia

1.
The  Russian  newspaper  Rossiyskie  Vesti  published  three  articles  on  11  April  1995,  29  June  1995  and
18  October  1997  under  the  headlines:  (cid:145)Legacy  from  a  Dutch  grandmother(cid:146),  (cid:145)Mousetrap  baited  with  Dutch
cheese(cid:146) and (cid:145)Dutch response to Rossiyskie Vesti investigation(cid:146), all relating to the misuse of EU subsidies. Has
the Council instructed the Commission to investigate the misuse of EU funds referred to in these newspaper
articles? If so, what are the Council(cid:146)s conclusions? If not, why has such an inquiry not yet been carried out and is
the Council still prepared to instruct the Commission as a matter of urgency to make inquiries regarding the
alleged misuse of EU subsidies in connection with the building of the distribution centre in Moscow?

2.
Is it true, as stated in the Rossiyskie Vesti article of 29 June 1995 entitled (cid:145)Mousetrap baited with Dutch
cheese(cid:146),  that  (cid:145)the  lion(cid:146)s  share  of  the  money  intended  for  the  Russian  development  project  of  building  a
distribution centre near Moscow in cooperation with the Russian semi-state-controlled company TONAR has
been  paid  to  the  Dutch  multinational  Koninklijke  Ahold  N.V.  for  consultancy  work  and  under  the  guise  of
assistance to Russia, experts and officials have enriched themselves with EU funds(cid:146)?

3.
In  the  articles  Rossiyskie  Vesti  claims  that  money  made  available  to  Russia  by  the  EU  for  Technical
Assistance has not been efficiently used. Can the Council say how the EU funds have been used in building the
projected distribution centre and why the building of the distribution centre has not been completed?

4.
Does  the  Council  not  take  the  view  that  the  Dutch  courts  have  now  established  de  facto  that  the
multinational Koninklijke Ahold N.V., the Dutch partner in the project, acted unlawfully vis-a‘-vis its Russian
partner TONAR and that the funds made available for this project by the European Union should be reclaimed?

5.
The  Russian  newspaper  Rossiyskie  Vesti  concluded  on  18  October  1997  that  (cid:145)the  Government  of  the
Netherlands is actually only helping its own nationals(cid:146). Does the Council realize that behaviour such as this by
the Government of the Netherlands runs counter to the intentions of the European Union in granting subsidies to
Russia, namely the promotion of economic activity in Russia and thus of stability and security in Europe as a
whole?

(98/C 196/42)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4158/97

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(22 January 1998)

Subject: Failure of a TACIS project in Russia

1.
The Netherlands and its consultants Koninklijke Ahold NV were taken to court on 4 December 1997 by the
Russian  partner  Tonar  for  payment  of  Fl.  9  million  damages  for  the  unlawful  termination  of  a  TACIS  aid
programme (TAGOS) initiated by the EU. According to the ruling of the Amsterdam Court the termination of the