WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Swedish public procurement law in relation to EU directive.
Date: 2000-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, environmental protection, national law, public contract

C 340 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

pivotal to this victory. Does the Commission wish to thank the EU lawyers, led by Theofanis Christoforou,
and experts, including Dr Morris Greenberg from the UK and Dr Barry Castleman from the USA, for their
dedication and perseverance?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission is very pleased with the conclusions of the panel that, on 18 September 2000, confirmed
the consistency of the French ban on asbestos with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and it is
grateful to all those who have contributed to achieving such a positive result. The Commission hopes that
the panel(cid:146)s final conclusion will be confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body.

(2001/C 340 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Swedish public procurement law in relation to EU directive

A number of local politicians and local authority procurement officers in Sweden are now in revolt against
the Swedish law on public procurement. Many local authorities take the view that the law prevents them
from requiring companies to comply with social policy criteria, such as environmental considerations.

The law on public procurement was enacted in 1994 to bring the provisions into line with EU legislation
but many local politicians believe that Sweden does not need such strict rules as it currently has. A
recently published survey shows that Sweden has the most stringent public procurement law in the whole
of Europe.

Has the Commission studied the various national laws on public procurement and does the Commission
share the survey(cid:146)s analysis that Sweden has been unnecessarily strict in its interpretation of the EU directive
on this matter and could therefore relax its rules on public procurement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

The Member States are obliged to take all measures necessary to comply with Community law and, in
law. When
particular, to take the measures required to transpose Community directives into national
checking these national transposing measures, which it does as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission
only ensures that all Community provisions have been correctly transposed. In this respect, it ensures in
particular that provisions which establish rights for tenderers on the one hand, and public contract
awarders on the other, have been transposed correctly.

As regards public procurement, the Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that putting all
the provisions of the directives together does not make a uniform Community legislation in that several of
the obligations pursuant to the directives allow the Member States some interpretative leeway concerning
the means and scope of the measures taken. Moreover, in its Judgment of 20 September 1988 in Case
31/87 (Beentjes, Grounds of the Judgment 20), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Member States were
therefore free to maintain or adopt substantive and procedural rules in regard to public works contracts on
condition that
in particular the
prohibitions resulting from the principles laid down in the Treaty in regard to the right of establishment
and the freedom to provide services. Thus for example, some Member States, such as Sweden, have
provisions in their legislation for an environmental award criterion. The public works directives (1) and the
EC Treaty do not oppose this as such, bearing in mind that such a criterion would be directly linked to the
subject of the public procurement and would involve economic gain for the contracting authority.
Similarly, the Member States are allowed to provide for provisions which apply below the threshold,
provided that they are in line with Community law.

the relevant provisions of Community law,

they comply with all

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/9

The Commission is not aware of the survey mentioned by the Honourable Member. If the Honourable
Member considers that, despite the above, the provisions of Swedish law on public procurement would be
against Community law, the Commission would of course be prepared to investigate why this was the
case.

in particular,

As regards,
taking account of environmental and social conditions as part of public
procurement, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to its Communication of
11 March 1998 (2), in which it highlighted current possibilities for taking such aspects into consideration
within the framework of public procurement. The Commission is committed to adopting two
targets in public
interpretative communications (cid:129) the first on taking account of environmental
procurement, the other on social objectives. The purpose of these two communications, which the
Commission intends to adopt during the first quarter of 2001 for the environment and the first half of
2001 for the social aspects, is to clarify the conditions in which such objectives can be taken into account
in accordance with Community law.

(1)

I.e. Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992); Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993); Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993) and
European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/
EEC and 93/37/EEC (OJ L 328, 28.11.1997).

(2) COM(1998) 143 final.

(2001/C 340 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4139/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Colombian jail release (cid:129) Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova

Bearing in mind Commissioners Nielson(cid:146)s and Patten(cid:146)s correspondence with Mrs Doyle in August and
September on the subject of the disappearance of Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova, members of the
Atlantis Community in Colombia and bearing in mind the horrific murder of Tristan James Murray and
Javier Nova in Columbia at the hands of left wing guerrillas and given that the two Sanabria Guerrero
brothers who carried out these murders have recently been released from prison in Colombia after serving
just one month in prison, could the Commission through its Bogota office please contact the Fiscalia, the
public prosecutor, for an immediate explanation the release of the Sanabria Guerrero brothers?

In the light of the EU(cid:146)s involvement in the (cid:145)Plan Colombia(cid:146) operation and in the light of the human rights
record and the judicial system currently operating in Colombia, could the Commission confirm that it will
make the grave concerns of Mrs Doyle, known to President Pastrana and use it(cid:146)s influence in the region to
ensure that justice is done in this case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

As the Commission has already expressed on several occasions, it deeply deplores the murder of the young
Tristan Murray and Javier Nova.

The Commission has already contacted the (cid:145)Fiscal(cid:237)a(cid:146) in Colombia. Mrs Carmen Gonzales, Director of the
Investigation Department stated that the case is currently being examined. The Commission will, of course,
follow up on this issue and keep the Honourable Member informed about further developments.

As to the grave concerns expressed by the Honourable Member and the problem of human rights
violations in general, the Union will continue to stress the importance of making progress in this field to
its Colombian interlocutors.