WRITTEN QUESTION P-1905/00 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Marriage contracts.
Date: 2000-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, matrimonial law

C 72 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

3. What does the Commission think of the accusation that (cid:145)S(cid:252)dtirol-Online(cid:146) has for some time tolerated
extreme right-wing chat fora on its website? Given these criticisms, how can EU assistance for this Internet
service be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member relates to the management of projects cofinanced by the
European Social Fund (ESF) under the various Community Initiatives. In accordance with Community rules
and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, management of these projects falls within the competence of
the Member States.

Having contacted the Member State,
is
LIT 982 900 000, of which a sum of 442 000 000 is cofinanced by the ESF, 147 435 000 by the national
budget (fondo di rotazione), and LIT 393 160 000 provided by the private sector. The amount of the
advance already paid by the ESF is LIT 73 000 000.

the Commission can confirm that

the project(cid:146)s budget

The Commission has asked the national authorities to check on the entire project. In accordance with the
partnership principle, no further advance payments will be made.

(2001/C 72 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1905/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Marriage contracts

Can the Commission confirm that marriage contracts validated and signed under one Member State(cid:146)s laws
are not valid in the courts of another?

Can the Commission give the European Parliament an assurance that it will introduce steps to provide
legal protection to citizens in such situations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission to confirm that marriage contracts validated and
signed under the law of one Member State are not valid before the courts of another Member State.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that at the moment there are no Community
rules applicable to marriage contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. The Brussels and Rome
Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Civil and Commercial
Matters exclude matrimonial property arrangements from their scope. Similarly,
the regulation on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters excludes marriage
contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. However, the Commission communication proposing a
scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area (cid:145)of freedom, security and justice(cid:146) (1), provides for
the drawing up by April 2004 of a preliminary study on jurisdiction and applicable law, for matrimonial
property arrangements.

It follows then that the validity of marriage contracts concluded in another Member State is currently
governed by the national rules, notably under private international law, of each Member State.

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/147

the Commission would point out that there is a Convention on the Law Applicable to
Moreover,
Matrimonial Property Regimes concluded under the aegis of the Hague Conference on Private International
Law, but it has been ratified by only three Member States, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

(1) COM(2000) 167 final.

(2001/C 72 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1907/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Beal Valley Contract: public procurement

The Beal Valley Action Group first made contact with the Commission in April 1999 regarding the alleged
failure of Oldham Council to advertise the (cid:145)Beal Valley(cid:146) golf course project according to EC rules on public
procurement.

On 3 September 1999 the Action Group received a response from the Directorate-General for Competi-
tion requesting further information regarding the case. On 30 September 1999, copies of correspondence
between the Beal Valley Action Group and the Commission were hand delivered to the Directorate-General
for Competition together with extracts from the advice on the case from the Queen(cid:146)s Counsel and Barrister
(dated May 1998).

A letter was received from John Mogg, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition, on
26 October requesting further information about the contract value of the works in question. On
25 January, a letter was sent by myself to Mr Mogg asking exactly what additional
information was
required.

On 7 February, the Beal Valley Action Group(cid:146)s (cid:145)Financial Report to the European Commission(cid:146) was hand
delivered to the Directorate-General for Competition.

Further contract by telephone with officials at this Directorate-General has revealed that the Commission
still considers that more proof is needed to substantiate the claims made by the Beal Valley Action Group
against Oldham Council. However, the Commission has so far been unable to clarify exactly what
additional information is required.

Exactly what evidence does the Commission require as proof that a local authority has not properly
advertised a contract, given that the same local authority is thereafter likely to seek to disguise this fact
from the Commission?

How many actions for failure to properly advertise contracts are currently being pursued?

Finally, when will the Beal Valley Action Group get a full and comprehensive response to the submission
to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The first issue that needs to be tackled with respect to the (cid:145)Beal Valley(cid:146) project concerns the rules
applicable to this case. If the estimated value of the contract is over the threshold and a public works
contract, in the sense of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts (1), has been concluded, then the detailed provisions of
the directive would be applicable to this case. If it is a public works contract under the threshold the
relevant provisions would be the general rules and principles regarding Community law.