WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3262/98 by Antonios TRAKATELLIS to the Commission. Reforms in connection with implementation in Greece of projects under the Second CSF and Cohesion Fund and list of projects with identified shortcomings and defective work
Date: 1998-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, TRAKATELLIS
Subjects: EU aid, Greece, co-financing, consultancy, entrepreneur, producer's liability, public works, supervisory body













EUR-Lex - 91998E3262 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3262

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3262/98 by Antonios TRAKATELLIS to the Commission. Reforms in connection with implementation in Greece of projects under the Second CSF and Cohesion Fund and list of projects with identified shortcomings and defective work  


Official Journal C 297 , 15/10/1999 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3262/98by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission(22 October 1998)Subject: Reforms in connection with implementation in Greece of projects under the Second CSF and Cohesion Fund and list of projects with identified shortcomings and defective workA careful reading of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies' answer of 12 October 2120/98(1) leaves no doubt that it is not only the contractors but also the supervisory bodies who are responsible for the serious failings in the implementation of the projects. Moreover, a number of other important questions have been raised concerning the supervision of the projects and the changes introduced after the proposals by the joint steering committee made up of Greek and Community experts. Recently, not only were serious shortcomings identified but also variances of as much as 90 %. If these irregularities are taken together with a number of recent road accidents attributed to poor road surfacing, the responsibility is enormous and rests not only with the Greeks but also the Community as joint funder of the projects.1. What reforms has the joint committee proposed, apart from setting up the ESPEL quality control mechanism, and which of these have been adopted and implemented in Greek law?2. Why was there such a delay in ordering thorough checks to be carried out i.e. until 1 July 1998, when serious shortcomings had already been identified in completed projects and projects in progress?3. How are checks carried out on projects, i.e. are spot checks carried out once the work is completed but not during construction by the supervisor of the project and the national body responsible for implementation of the project?4. In which projects were shortcomings identified? Which national bodies were responsible for implementation of those projects and what is their responsibility? Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of this information.Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission(20 November 1998)1. In addition to the setting up of Espel, which acts as a third party inspection body, a modernisation plan covering the directorate concerned within the Ministry of Public Works is under way.2. Espel began its work on 1 January 1998. It was felt that, in the first six months, large numbers of sampling checks were preferable to exhaustive checks on only a few projects.3. The checks carried out by Espel on projects receiving Community part-finance take place irrespective of the stage the projects have reached, i.e. even if they have been completed.4. The Commission does not have a list of the projects checked by Espel and it would point out that the number of tests carried out by sampling on each project examined in the first six months does not allow specific projects to be singled out.As it stated in the answer to the Written Question referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to follow developments closely.(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.