WRITTEN QUESTION P-0681/01 by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Commission. The freedom of German firms to provide services in the sphere of aerial photogrammetry.
Date: 2001-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Italy, cartography, company law, freedom to provide services, head office, infringement of EU law, nationality of legal persons, restriction on competition

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/237

In March 1995 the Veneto regional government published a (cid:145)unified manual for the spelling of Veneto(cid:146).

On 22 November 1999 the Veneto regional parliament adopted, by a large majority, a resolution (No 262)
calling on the Italian State to recognise Veneto as a regional language.

Veneto was the mother tongue of various important figures, such as the explorer Marco Polo and the
writer Carlo Goldoni.

Despite all this the Italian State and the European Office for Minority Languages have not yet recognised
Veneto(cid:146)s status as a regional language.

Can the Commission say what procedures and measures are needed to ensure that Veneto is recognised as
a regional language by the European Office for Minority Languages as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The recognition of regional and minority languages is a matter for the Member States, which take various
approaches. As far as Italy is concerned, this Member State ratified the European Charter for Regional and
Minority Languages of the Council of Europe on 27 June 2000 and drew up the list of the languages
recognised in this connection, without including Veneto.

The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) is co-financed by the Community and represents
the regional and minority language communities of the Community. It is an independent body made up of
national committees representing the various cultural associations and bodies that are active in the national
language communities. Their composition is their own responsibility, and the Community does not
intervene in this organisation.

it

In both cases,
the Italian
Government for recognition at the level of the Italian State, and the EBLUL for the question of its presence
in this body.

the competent authorities or persons directly:

is necessary to contact

(2001/C 235 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0681/01

by Karin J(cid:246)ns (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: The freedom of German firms to provide services in the sphere of aerial photogrammetry

1.
Is it true that in the context of Europe-wide calls to tender in the sphere of aerial surveying for
contracts worth more than € 200 000 German contractors are obliged to prove that they have their
registered office in the Member State issuing the call to tender? The Member States concerned are Italy and
Greece.

The firm concerned is a legal person taking the legal form of a German limited company with a registered
office in Germany only. The company aims to obtain contracts not only in Germany but also in other
Member States, in order to tackle the growing pressure of competition in the field of aerial photogram-
metry. In particular, firms from other Member States are gaining entry to the German market without
having to fulfil the above-mentioned obligation, whilst German firms in the Member States Italy and
Greece have to prove that they are based in those countries in order to take part in tendering procedures
in the form outlined above.

2.
Is it true that in the context of Europe-wide calls to tender in the sphere of aerial surveying for
contracts worth more than € 200 000 German contractors are obliged to prove that they have specific
authorisation to carry out photogrammetry flights in another Member State?

C 235 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

It is important to know whether it is permissible in other Member States to demand specific authorisation
to carry out aerial surveys in addition to the general authorisation allowing planes to be flown with
a relevant license.

If the answer to questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, does the Commission intend to introduce
3.
a change in the law by the means available to it, so that the obligations referred to under paragraphs 1 or
2 may be amended or abolished for the benefit of German companies?

Respect for the fundamental freedom to provide services in accordance with Article 49 of the EC Treaty
must be the main concern in this context. In particular, German companies must be able to carry out
aerial survey work without restrictive conditions.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Commission has no details of the calls for tenders or the national legislation to which the Honourable
Member refers, nor any other information which might confirm or otherwise the statements made in the
Written Question. If the Honourable Member were to have copies of these documents or any other more
detailed information, the Commission would be obliged if she would forward them so that it can approach
the Member States concerned in possession of the minimum amount of information which any such
approach requires if it is to lead rapidly to concrete and conclusive results. It would also be important to
clarify whether the alleged discrimination concerns German companies alone or extends to cover any
company established in another Member State.

What the Commission can say at this stage is that, as a general rule, the requirement in a public
procurement procedure to provide proof of establishment within the meaning of the EC Treaty in the
Member State of the awarding authority would constitute a violation of the principles and general rules of
the EC Treaty and, more particularly, of the rules on the freedom to provide services.

The issue of whether it is legitimate to demand specific authorisation to overfly national territory for the
purposes of providing aerial survey services seems to be more complex, as it touches on aspects of public
safety, public policy and protection of the essential
interests of the Member State concerned. More
information is needed before this matter can be examined.

(2001/C 235 E/281)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Operation of projects funded by 2nd CSF

(8 March 2001)

The following projects were carried out under the 2nd Community Support Framework in the regions of:

(a) Oinofyta:

(1) biological treatment of urban waste,

(2) biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region;

(b) Skhimatarion:

(1) biological treatment of urban waste,

(2) biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region.

According to my information, these installations, particularly those involving the treatment of industrial
waste, do not operate owing to the cost involved unless an inspection is imminent.