WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3887/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Commission. Misuse of EU funds in Russia
Date: 1997-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN BLADEL
Subjects: EU aid, Netherlands, Russia, abuse of power, distributive trades, foodstuff, trade cooperation













EUR-Lex - 91997E3887 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3887

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3887/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Commission. Misuse of EU funds in Russia  


Official Journal C 223 , 17/07/1998 P. 0030 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)Subject: Misuse of EU funds in Russia1. The Russian newspaper Rossiyskie Vesti published three articles on 11 April 1995, 29 June 1995 and 18 October 1997 under the headlines: 'Legacy from a Dutch grandmother', 'Mousetrap baited with Dutch cheese' and 'Dutch response to Rossiyskie Vesti investigation', all relating to the misuse of EU subsidies. Has the Commission investigated the misuse of EU funds referred to in these newspaper articles? If so, what are its findings? If not, why has such an inquiry not yet been carried out and is the Commission still prepared to make inquiries as a matter of urgency 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 'Mousetrap baited with Dutch cheese', that 'the lion'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'?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 Commission 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 Commission 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-à-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 'the Government of the Netherlands is actually only helping its own nationals'. Does the Commission 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?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (16 January 1998)1. Food distribution in Russia was badly affected by the breakdown of the command economy in the period immediately after the Soviet Union in 1991. As shortages became apparent in the larger cities, food aid was organised for Russian citizens.2. Apart from food aid, the Commission invited Koninklijke Ahold NV in February 1992 to develop proposals for a new food distribution system in the Krasnog vardeisky district in Moscow. This work resulted in a proposal to introduce a whole sale and retail system, making use of the old storage centres in and around Moscow. As a pilot to test this new set up, the Moskvoretskaya distribution centre was proposed. The project was executed in line with the rules and financial procedures of the Commission.3. A detailed feasibility study and the implementation of the results were subsequently funded by the Dutch government, which took over this project from the Commission in 1992. This Dutch study, as referred to in the question of the Honourable Member and now the subject of a litigation between the Russian and Dutch parties, did not involve any Tacis funding.4. Hence, the Commission cannot investigate projects which do not involve Community funding. As indicated above, as regards the first project, the Commission sees no reason to start investigating the potential misuse of Community funds, nor to commence proceedings to recover funds relating to that project as it was executed in conformity with Tacis rules and procedures.5. The Commission strives to ensure synergy between its technical assistance programme and those of the Member States. It views this was sufficiently achieved in this relevant case.