WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Olaf's sphere of activity.
Date: 2000-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU customs procedure, European Anti-fraud Office, Union transit, executive power, legislative power, powers of the institutions (EU)

C 330 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Article 6(3) implies that an assessment is required in the case of a plan or project that is likely to have a
significant effect on a SPA. The authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the
opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications and in the absence of
alternative solutions, the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out, the Member State has to comply
with all the specific requirements that are mentioned in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission is taking the necessary steps to ensure that
Community is fully complied with in this case.

the environmental

legislation of

the

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Olaf(cid:146)s sphere of activity

At the last minute, Olaf, the Community(cid:146)s anti-fraud agency, has objected to Articles 66 and 73 of
Doc XXI/1402/97-rev.8 and demanded that sensitive goods be excluded from the institute of
the
authorised consignor or recipient, otherwise the aim of combating fraud would be undermined.

After this was announced, the European industrial confederations intervened and stated that the simplified
procedure should be based on the reliability of the principal, contending that this was one of the main
reasons for the reform. The customs authorities in most Member States are also opposed to the action
taken by Olaf in this regard.

This shows the power of the anti-fraud agency, which is going against the Commission and against most
Member States.

What action is the Commission taking in this connection to make sure that Olaf(cid:146)s power lies in the
executive rather than the legislative sphere?

How will the Commission try to confine Olaf(cid:146)s sphere of activity to executive areas only?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

First of all, the Commission would point out that it acts in accordance with the principle of collective
responsibility. It would stress that the fight against fraud is one of its constant political concerns.

On the matter of the reform of the Community transit procedure (1) (and of the common transit procedure,
which is being conducted in parallel), some of the Commission(cid:146)s proposals which are being discussed
within the Transit Section of the Customs Code Committee were designed to exclude cigarettes and alcohol
above 40o from some of the simplified procedures (authorised consignor and recipient). It will be recalled
that some particularly serious cases of
fraud involving these products prompted the creation of a
committee of inquiry in Parliament in December 1995.

The Commission does not wish to prejudge the outcome of the current discussions.

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/101

the instruments adopted in 1999 (2) confirm that

As far as the European Anti-Fraud Office(cid:146)s (OLAF) powers are concerned, the Commission would stress
the Office(cid:146)s mission is not merely one of
that
investigation and operational support. The Office also has a role to play in formulating policy for the
fight against fraud, and in preparing Commission initiatives for legislative instruments and regulations in
its fields of activity (including instruments which come under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union).
The Office also represents the Commission in the forums concerned with the fight against fraud.

(1) Draft Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular

Article 2; OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Road tunnel at the port of Olbia, Sardinia

(4 February 2000)

In reply to my Written Question E-2039/99 (1) about the Olbia tunnel, the Commission stated that the
Italian authorities must carry out a preliminary assessment to determine whether this project (cid:129) which falls
within category 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (2) (cid:129) should be subjected to an environmental
impact assessment. Construction work in the tunnel is already in progress.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this preliminary assessment is carried out
as quickly as possible? Would it not agree that infringement proceedings should be brought against Italy
for violation of the above directive, given that a preliminary assessment is obligatory for projects listed in
the annexes to that directive, in respect of which the Member State has discretionary powers, as confirmed
by the Court of Justice (3).

As I also stressed in Written Question 2039/99, responsibility for constructing the tunnel was, in breach of
the 1980 port master plan, assigned by ANAS (the Italian highways authority) to the Roman firm Tor di
Valle without any call for bids.

Does the Commission therefore not consider that the fact that the contract to build the tunnel was
awarded without an open invitation to tender constitutes a breach of European public procurement
legislation (4)?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 73.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) The Court of Justice judgment of 2 May 1996 in Case 133/94.
(4) Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission has opened a file on the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member and has
requested detailed information. The situation will be assessed on the basis of the response of the Italian
authorities.

As for the possible action by the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community
law, the Commission powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the
guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures,
including infringement
procedures under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of
Community law relevant to the specific case.