WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4044/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Postponement of the ban on drift nets
Date: 1998-01-14
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: catch of fish, fishing net, fishing regulations, proposal (EU), sea fish

C 187/114

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 6. 98

(98/C 187/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/97

by Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(14 January 1998)

Subject: Postponement of the ban on drift nets

For what reasons has the Commission postponed submission of a new proposal to ban drift nets or gill nets for
catching tuna?

Why has Commissioner Bonino gone back on her promise to submit a proposal before the end of 1997?

Is the Commission aware that its 1994 proposal is being stonewalled by the Commission?

Why has the Commission accepted and concurred with the Council’s opposition?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1998)

The Commission has undertaken to find the best way of unblocking the driftnet issue in the Council, together
with the Presidency of the Council and the Member States concerned.

The proposal has not been blocked in the Council by the Commission › which has indicated its wish to find a
solution on several occasions › but because a qualified majority has not so far emerged. The UK Presidency has
said that it will submit a compromise proposal to the Council and the Commission hopes that a fair and lasting
solution can be found on this basis. It will lend the Presidency all its support in this regard.

(98/C 187/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4046/97

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1998)

Subject: Breach of the rules on European public contracts

In the context of the procedure for the award of public contracts under the Lome· Convention, the Italian company
ITAMSIDER, which had been awarded a contract in Mauritania, duly supplied certain materials to that country.
However,  Mauritania,  despite  having  received  the  material  according  to  due  form,  has  refused  to  ask  the
Commission  to  make  the  corresponding  payment,  adducing  unsubstantiated  and  unproven  allegations  of
technical unsuitability.

This refusal was in reality motivated by the fact that ITAMSIDER refused, as a matter of principle, to pay the
bribe which was asked of it as a condition for supplying the Commission with the documents required for the
funds concerned to be released.

The local representative of the Commission held an expert hearing › of a summary nature and not allowing for
representation of both sides › which was subsequently declared to have been irregular by the Court of First
Instance in Luxembourg (judgment of 25 June 1997, first section, T-7/96).

The Court of First Instance did not, however, take into consideration the recording of a telephone conversation
which established beyond all doubt that the representatives of the Mauritanian company had asked for a bribe.

It should be clear from the above that the Italian company was obliged to react to behaviour of an unethical
nature. There appears, however, to be no possibility of taking out legal proceedings in Mauritania, since such
attitudes would seem to be a matter of (cid:145)usual practice(cid:146) in that country.

The  circumstance  that  such  behaviour  can  go  unpunished  can  only  be  considered  detrimental  to  the  correct
functioning of the Community institutions.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

1.
what means of redress are available in such cases, given that the procedures instituted by DG XX to bolster
action against fraud and to protect the Community(cid:146)s financial interests seem to be completely ineffective in the
face of behaviour such as that described;

what its position is on this matter as a whole, and what measures it intends to take to offer more secure

2.
guarantees to Community enterprises?