WRITTEN QUESTION P-1907/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Beal Valley Contract: public procurement.
Date: 2000-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: North West (England), United Kingdom, access to information, competence of the Member States, infringement of EU law, sports facilities, works contract

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.

C 72 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

Two letters were sent to the complainant, namely on 3 September 1999 and 5 October 1999, in order to
tackle this first issue. The complainant replied to the first letter on 23 September 1999. The information
included in this reply did not bring forward any new elements that would permit further analysis.
Therefore, a second letter was addressed to the complainant, asking for further information about the
contract value of the works in question and in particular the method used to arrive at any contract
valuation.

The complainant sent two replies to the above mentioned second letter. The first reply, dated 29 October
1999, basically consisted of a repetition of the information that had been originally sent. The second reply,
dated 7 February 2000, includes new information which is currently under analysis. It would appear from
the documents contained in this second reply that a service concession, as that concept is clarified and
defined in the Commission interpretative communication on concessions (2) may be involved.

As regards the question concerning the evidence required to examine the alleged infringements, the
Commission needs substantiated information showing that an infringement of the public procurement
rules has taken place. Otherwise,
information would be needed in order to have sufficient
foundation to address specific issues to the Member State.

factual

Finally, with respect to current actions for failure to properly advertise contracts, there are currently about
228 public procurement infringement cases open, including some involving failure to advertise in the
Official journal.

If, as a result of the analysis of the documentation,
Community law, the Commission will adopt the necessary measures.

it appears there has been an infringement of

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2) OJ C 121, 29.4.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/00

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Grants for exchanges

I receive numerous letters complaining at the meagreness of the grants allocated under the Erasmus section
of the Socrates programme.
In order to remedy this problem, could the Commission consider the
possibility of setting up, for example, a European Foundation by means of a public-private partnership,
with a view to encouraging young people(cid:146)s mobility in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Every year the demand for student mobility under Erasmus rises sharply, while the budget available for
mobility grants increases only slightly. The Commission is aware of the repercussions of this imbalance in
terms of the level of Erasmus grants and the frustration this can cause. Together with the various interested
parties (Socrates/Erasmus national agencies, representatives of the academic world, student associations), it
is looking for possible solutions to the problem.

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the fact that the purpose of Erasmus grants is not to cover
all the costs incurred by students during the period spent abroad, but to help offset the additional costs
resulting from their being abroad. Financial assistance from sources other than the Community budget is
therefore essential, and many countries participating in the Erasmus mobility scheme offer students
additional (national, regional or private) funding. This is clear from the survey on the socio-economic
background of Erasmus students, the results of which were forwarded to Parliament on 18 January 2000 (1)
and are currently being examined by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport.