WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the directive on public works contracts.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Castile-Leon, Spain, infringement procedure (EU), penal institution, supplies contract

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/181

(2001/C 72 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on horse riding on designated roads

Can the Commission confirm that it has no intention of introducing legislation leading to a ban on horse
riding on designated roads within the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it currently has no intention to introduce legislation that would seek to
ban horse riding on designated roads within the Union.

(2001/C 72 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the

directive on public works contracts

In early March the Commission announced its intention to allow the Spanish authorities two months in
which to make good the irregularities that had led to the opening of infringement proceedings on the
grounds of incorrect transposal of Directive 93/37/EC (1) on public works contracts. The proceedings were
opened in connection with the procedure used to select the undertaking responsible for building a new
prison in Segovia.

However, this move in fact calls into question the system used in Spain for the award of contracts to
businesses which receive public funding (cid:129) a system which is used by many of the governments of the
autonomous communities.

Given that the deadline set for the Spanish authorities has now expired and that no trace of any
proceedings is to be found in the list of Spanish cases pending before the Court of Justice (as at 18 May
2000), can the Commission state whether it has actually referred the case to the Court and, if it has, what
stage has been reached in the proceedings?

Furthermore, have the Spanish authorities submitted any further arguments, and, if so, what are those
arguments?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission decided on 22 December 1999 to refer the matter concerning Spain to the Court of
Justice, as part of infringement proceedings in connection with a call for tenders announced by the
Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Penitenciarios (Siepsa) to carry out works at the
experimental training prison in Segovia.

The call for tenders, which was published in the national press but not in the Official Journal, was
launched in violation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. The Spanish authorities dispute the

C 72 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

application of this directive to Siepsa on the grounds that it is a public commercial company governed by
private law. The fact remains that Siepsa is a contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive,
in particular the condition that it has been
inasmuch as it fulfils the conditions of Article 1 thereof,
established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general
interest, not having an industrial or
commercial character.

The Commission took the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice after Spain had replied on
22 November 1999 to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 25 August 1999, since the
arguments put forward in the reply did not justify a change of opinion on the part of the Commission.

The application was recently submitted to the Court of Justice.

(2001/C 72 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Milk for confectionery

Are there any restrictions in operation within the Community on the use of EU milk for confectionery?

What is the legal situation of any company attempting to specify to producers the country/countries
within the EU from which such milk must originate before they will purchase the confectionery?

Answer by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The use in confectionery of milk produced within the Community is not subject to any restrictions in the
Community.

In general, Community law does not prevent a company purchasing milk-based confectionery from
specifying to producers the Member State(s) from which the milk used must originate.

Furthermore, in case of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, it may be
provided in the specifications of
the milk must originate from a given
geographical region.

the protected name that

(2001/C 72 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2153/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Ethics and European law

Is the Commission aware that the French Ethics Committee (ComitØ Consultatif National D(cid:146)Ethique) has
urged the French National Assembly not
to translate into French law the recent directive on the
patentability of the human genome?

Can a Member State suspend implementation of any European legislation on moral grounds? What steps
will the Commission take to ensure that European law is not compromised in this way? Will it consider
establishing its own Ethics Committee/Ethics Unit so that these important issues are not (cid:145)nationalised(cid:146) but
treated at Pan-European level?