WRITTEN QUESTION E-4116/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE), Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission. Public works contracts and the fight against unemployment.
Date: 2001-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: award of contract, fight against unemployment, public contract

C 174 E/234

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4103/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Implications of sanctions policy against Austria

Austria(cid:146)s contribution to European integration and its relations with the other Member States have always
been based on the principles of loyalty and respect.

The sanctions policy which was rigidly applied against Austria has now been suspended.

Will the Commission state what its current views and intentions are with respect to this country, which
was one of the first to commit itself to upholding and promoting such values as democracy and the rule of
law and now continues to uphold more fully and effectively the will of the people?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s intentions in relation to Austria in no way differ from those which guide its action
towards any other Member State. It goes without saying that the Commission can only be pleased at the
respect for democracy and legality shown by each Member State,
in accordance with the obligations
contained in the Treaties.

(2001/C 174 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4116/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE), Salvador JovØ Peres (GUE/NGL)
and Carlos Carnero GonzÆlez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Public works contracts and the fight against unemployment

(11 January 2001)

Previous parliamentary questions as to whether objective social criteria should form part of the criteria for
the awarding of public works contracts (see Questions E-0816/00 and E-0817/00 (1)) have always met with
a negative response, with the Commission alleging that this would be incompatible with Directive 93/37/
EC (2) on coordinating procedures for the awarding of public works contracts.

Certain public authorities, galvanised by the enormous problem of unemployment in their respective
Member States, have in fact included certain conditions concerning the creation or protection of stable
employment amongst their public works contract award criteria, conditions which do not, however, entail
discrimination against tenders from other Member States. The Commission has opened proceedings against
several of these public authorities. In case C-255/98, Commission v. French Republic, this has led to a
Court of Justice ruling that the public works contract Directives do not exclude the possible inclusion, by
the contracting bodies, of a condition linked with the fight against unemployment as one of the awarding
criteria, provided that the condition in question respects all the fundamental principles of Community law
and, particularly, the principle of non-discrimination (paragraph 50 of the judgment).

In the light of the conclusions of this judgment, how does the Commission intend to pursue the
proceedings it has opened against certain public authorities? Is it going to incorporate these conclusions
in the new directives on public contracts which are currently being adopted by the Community
institutions, so as to clarify the spirit of the ruling in question?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 164.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/235

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The question asked by the Honourable Members, which concerns the implications of the recent judgment
of the Court of Justice (C-225/98 (cid:129) School buildings, Nord-Pas de Calais) for the handling of infringement
proceedings and the future directives on public procurement, raises complex issues.

The Commission is currently examining this case law and will present its interpretation in an interpretative
communication on the possibilities of taking into account social objectives in public procurement, which it
undertook to adopt by the end of June 2001.

On the basis of that communication, the Commission will decide on the action to be taken in infringement
proceedings against certain Member States.

Furthermore, in the light of the communication and taking into account the discussions in the Council and
in Parliament on the adoption of the recast public procurement directives, the Commission will examine
the case for proposing the incorporation of an explicit provision in the legislation in order to clarify the
possibility of including social criteria.

(2001/C 174 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4121/00

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Prohibition of markings by independent third-party certifiers in addition to the CE marking

Article 10(3) of the machinery directive 98/37/EC (1) mentions form and meaning as cumulative criteria
justifying the prohibition of markings by private third-party certifiers. But in the explanatory text to the
1999 directive this (cid:145)and(cid:146) becomes an (cid:145)or(cid:146) instead; which means that the prohibition does not apply merely
in the presence of both criteria, but even if only one criterion obtains. The explanation also says that
voluntary marking must not generally apply to aspects that are covered by the directive.

Is the Commission aware that, as regards prohibiting or permitting the affixing of markings by private
third-party certifiers, its explanatory text on the machinery directive contradicts the directive(cid:146)s unambig-
uous wording on the rule and the exception?

Is the Commission aware that, without any democratic authority from Parliament,
explanatory text that does not have the force of law to make nonsense of the directive(cid:146)s provisions?

it

is using an

Is the Commission aware that the industry takes the explanatory text to be a kind of legal provision, and
that this misleading impression is causing considerable uncertainty in the market and placing jobs at risk?

(1) OJ L 207, 23.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

Although some directives (and in particular Article 10(3) of Directive 98/37/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to machinery) contain phrases such as (cid:145)The affixing of markings on the machinery which are likely
to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking shall be prohibited(cid:146), other New
Approach directives (1) contain equivalent phrases referring to (cid:145)the meaning or the graphics(cid:146).