WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. Bribes and Union policy on distortion of competition rules and the fight against corruption.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, corruption

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/75

territory, any such route being considered to be vital for the economic development of the region or for
routes where public service obligations have been imposed. Such obligations may be imposed by a
Member State according to the provisions of the regulation on market access (2), where for particular
regions it is economically vital to ensure that sufficient scheduled air services are provided where otherwise
none or unsatisfactory air services would be operated. In both cases it is the competence of Member States
to examine the need for such services and reserve the appropriate slots.

The United Kingdom has imposed public service obligations on routes serving the Scottish Highlands and
Islands. The service between Plymouth and London Heathrow is a commercial service with no particular
conditions attached to it.

The Commission, while preparing its proposal on the revision of the slot regulation announced in its work
programme for 2000, will take account of all the aspects affected by the issue of slot allocation.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18.1.1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community

airports (OJ L 14, 22.1.1993).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23.7.1992 on access to Community air carriers to intra-Community

routes (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992).

(2001/C 89 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Bribes and Union policy on distortion of competition rules and the fight against corruption

In its reply of 8 November 1999 to written question P-1844/99 (1), with reference to its communication of
21 May 1997 on Community anti-corruption policy, the Commission stated that it intended to raise (cid:145)the
question of tax deductibility for bribes with the Member States in the appropriate fora, with a view to
reaching consensus to abolish such provisions in the framework of a joint concerted move(cid:146).

In its reply in April (joint reply to oral question No 59, H-0257/00 (2), and question E-2012/99) (3), the
Commission stated that it was in possession of information showing that those Member States that still
allowed firms to deduct from their profits commissions paid to foreign public officials had either already
amended their legislation or were about to do so in order to reflect the principles set out in the OECD
recommendation of April 1996 and the Commission communication of 21 May 1997.

Will the Commission provide specific details of the Member States concerned and the exact dates on which
the legislation of each was changed or is due to be changed?

The Commission also states that it has no immediate plans to propose harmonisation of the conditions
governing deductibility of commissions paid to private firms or persons. Quite apart from the obvious
distortion of competition rules the payment of such commissions represents, is the Commission aware of
the fact that a significant proportion of the monies supposedly paid to private persons or firms in order to
gain a foothold in the markets of third countries actually ends up with intermediaries and the managers of
firms in the Member State of origin?

In view of this, does the Commission agree that it has a duty to take, as a matter of urgency, all measures
necessary to ensure that the practice of deducting from profits commissions paid to persons and firms,
both public and private, is brought to an end as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 32.
(2) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000).
(3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 67.

C 89 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

Further to its answers to the questions cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out,
on the basis of the information submitted by the Member States to the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), that, Luxembourg apart, all those that still allowed firms to deduct
from their profits commissions paid to foreign public officials have now amended their legislation to end
this possibility and so apply the principles set out in the OECD recommendation of April 1996 and the
Commission communication of 21 May 1997 on a Union policy against corruption (1).

Luxembourg(cid:146)s government has, from the information it has provided to the OECD, already presented a bill
to the national parliament aimed at ending the deductibility of such commissions. It expects the bill to be
adopted before the end of the year.

is

Corruption in the private sector
the subject of a Joint Action adopted by the Council on
22 December 1998 on the basis of Article 31 (formerly K.3) of the Treaty on European Union (2).
Article 8 of the Joint Action requires each Member State, within two years of its entry into force on
31 December 1998, to submit appropriate proposals in the sphere of criminal law for consideration and
possible adoption by the competent authorities. The Council must assess the fulfilment by Member States
of their obligations under the Joint Action within three years of its entry into force. Only when the results
it be possible to determine whether tax measures are needed to
of this Joint Action are known will
supplement criminal law measures.

(1) COM(97) 192 final.
(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Availability of information on firms manufacturing and storing fireworks, and inclusion of such

firms on the risk list of directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II)

On Saturday, 13 May 2000 there was a major disaster in the Mekkelholt district of the city of Enschede
(Netherlands) caused by the explosion of the storage facility at SE Fireworks which resulted in a large
number of deaths and injuries.

The following three questions are asked:

1.

Immediately after the disaster a discussion was launched on the risk posed by this sort of firm to its
surroundings. This is the second time within ten years that a disaster has occurred with a firework
factory; in 1991 a factory exploded in the town of Culemborg.

According to the Ministry of Housing, Regional Planning and the Environment, there are 19 major
firework firms in the Netherlands with a capacity of 100-1500 tonnes (SE Fireworks had a capacity of
100 tonnes). These firms are not on the list of firms posing a serious threat to the environment which
have to meet the requirements of directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II).

The Seveso directive imposes certain obligations on firms to prevent serious risks and accidents for
firms and their surroundings. Can the Commission confirm that firework firms are not on the list of
risk firms?

2.

If so, does the Commission agree that (cid:129) in view of the serious nature of the disasters which can occur
with firework firms (cid:129) these firms should be covered by the European Seveso II directive? Is the
Commission prepared to take the necessary steps in this direction?