WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/01 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Pedemontana Lombarda.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, award of contract, common transport policy, motorway, public works

C 340 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Prior to the decree(cid:146)s entry into force, disability caused by AIDS was assessed solely on the basis of the
number of CD4 cells in the immune system and the opportunistic infections caught by sufferers. Since
March 2000 other factors have been taken into consideration, particularly the number of admissions to
hospital. Prior to the advent of combination therapies, the CD4 count rarely improved. This meant that
patients continued to be entitled to benefits since their degree of disability remained the same (1).

According to the Apoyo Positivo association, an AIDS support group,
the decision to change the
criteria for the recognition of disability and to include the requirement of a minimum number of
admissions to hospital per year represents a de facto tightening up of the conditions of eligibility for the
ESP 40 000 which are the sole income of many HIV-positive persons.

Given that the objectives of Decision 647/96/EC (2) adopting a programme of Community action on the
prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases (currently in the process of being revised)
include (cid:145)support for persons with HIV/AIDS and combating discrimination(cid:146) (Article 1(3)(D)) and ensuring
that they (cid:145)are not discriminated against in any way(cid:146) (Annex), would the Commission state whether:

(cid:129) it would not agree that the measures set out in the new decree adopted by the Spanish Government

are contrary to the provisions of Decision 647/96/EC?

(cid:129) it is willing to contact the Spanish authorities with a view to looking into the specific issue of the

change in criteria for the granting of assistance to HIV-positive persons?

(1) Under the current provisions, patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 (category C3) have a 65 % degree of
disability and qualify for a pension. Conversely, patients with a CD4 count of over 500 (category C1) do not qualify
for any benefits at all.
(2) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

Decision No 647/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996 adopting a programme of
Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases within the
framework for action in the field of public health (1996 to 2000) (1), encourages and promotes activities
aimed at avoiding discrimination against persons suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS).

Accordingly, the Commission supports relevant projects in this field providing a European added value. On
the other hand, the treatment and the criteria for the recognition of disability due to any illness are dealt
with at national level.

Consequently, the decision of the Spanish Government to change the criteria for the recognition of
disability and to include the requirement of a minimum number of admissions to hospital per year is not
contrary to the provisions of Decision No 647/96/EC. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to
contact the Spanish authorities with a view to looking into this specific issue.

(1) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.

(2001/C 340 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Pedemontana Lombarda

In its (cid:145)comprehensive transport plan(cid:146) the Italian Government has stated its intention of building the
(cid:145)Pedemontana Lombarda(cid:146) motorway to connect Varese to Como and Bergamo. The Lombardy adminis-
tration supports this plan, and by means of the agreement of 13 March 2000 began a process of
institutional negotiation with a view to establishing the project(cid:146)s specifications and route.

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/125

Both the government and the regional administration assume that this piece of infrastructure should be
built by the concessionaire company Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A.
In fact, this company has been
officially involved in all stages of the negotiation process.

it

that

appears

the motorway

to
However,
Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. without any invitation to tender being issued. The contract relating to the
project was approved by ANAS (the National Roads Authority) on 29 May 1990, and subsequently
confirmed by interministerial decree No 1524 of 31 August 1990 (cid:129) i.e. over a month after the deadline
for the automatic entry into force of the obligation contained in European Directive 89/440/EEC (1) to
award motorway concessions through restricted invitation to tender.

question was

concession

awarded

in

It should also be noted that:

(cid:129) although it is over ten years since it entered into force, no part of the contract has ever been

implemented (2);

(cid:129) the route currently under discussion is very different to that which was contained in the contract (3).

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

1. Whether, under Community legislation, the concession awarded to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. is

unlawful?

2. Whether, therefore, Decree 1524/90 and subsequent legal documents relating to this award provide

grounds for initiating European infringement proceedings;

3. Whether it does not consider that backing such a policy in favour of motorway concessionaire firms
amounts to a negation of the European Union(cid:146)s priority of rebalancing the share of different modes of
transport between road and rail?

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.
(2) As not even one metre of motorway has been built so far, any dispute with the concessionaire can only be
quantified in terms of the costs of the studies and designs completed to date (approximately ITL 10 billion, received
from the State on a non-refundable basis). Currently, approximately ITL 240 billion is available for design, of which
100 billion was allocated to ANAS by the financial law for 2000. Disbursement of these funds would presumably
lead to an immediate increase in the financial significance of the dispute.

(3) The State Legal Advisory Office has expressed the opinion that the concession can be considered valid, since there
has been no change to the place-names of the key points along the route (cid:129) i.e. Dalmine and the Gaggiolo pass to
the north of Varese. In the option currently under discussion, however, the Gaggiolo pass is reached via a section of
the Varese bypass which is not
linked to the main motorway, as this leads to the airport of Malpensa,
approximately 40 km from the pass itself.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

1.
On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question, the
concession granted to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. would not seem to be subject to the rules in Council
Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, which was required to be implemented no later than
19 July 1990. In its judgment of 5 October 2000 in case C-337/98, the Court of Justice affirmed the
principle that, if an awarding authority decided to select a contractor without a prior invitation to tender,
the applicable law would have to be determined by taking into account the point in time at which the
relevant decision was taken (in this instance, 29 May 1990 at the latest). However, if the main terms of the
contract had been changed subsequent to the conclusion of the original agreement, Council Directives 89/
440/EEC and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (1) could apply.

In any event, the Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities to provide any information which
2.
can be used to check that the concession granted to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A., as indicated by the
Honourable Member, is compatible with Community law with respect to public works contracts. If it were
to emerge from an examination of the above-mentioned information that the procedures followed were
not compatible with Community law,
the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex
Article 169) of the EC Treaty could be initiated.

C 340 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

As regards the concession system and its impact on rebalancing transport between road and rail, the
3.
Commission would remind the Honourable Member of its answer to Question E-0371/01, namely that the
Commission generally considers it preferable to make direct users bear the cost of using the particular
infrastructure and that it is examining measures which could contribute to a rebalancing of transport
between road and rail in the Community, particularly measures concerning the system of charging for the
use of infrastructure and infrastructure financing.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2001/C 340 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Public authorities(cid:146) use of incorrect conversion tables will encourage inflation when the euro is

introduced

1.
Is the Commission aware that it has been the Dutch government(cid:146)s intention since February 2000 to
increase fines (which have remained at the same level since 1981) by 10,19 % with effect from 2000 and
that this increase is to be simplified by replacing every two guilders (cid:129) together worth € 0,90756 (cid:129) by one
whole euro?

2.
Does the Commission know of any other examples of authorities of, or within, a Member State
intending to use the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002 to increase their tariffs or fines by using
a conversion table different to the one officially fixed in late 1998 for the comparative values of existing
currencies and the euro?

Does the Commission agree that the use by dealers of the euro logo agreement, which it called for in
3.
its reply to Question E-4066/00 (1), could be at risk if governments give the impression that they want to
increase their revenue when the euro is introduced?

4.
Is the Commission prepared to help ensure that any price increases deemed desirable by governments
are only implemented at a time when prices before and after the increase are expressed in the same
currency, so that
to everyone as a decision taken consciously and completely
they are apparent
independently of the introduction of a new unit of currency?

5. What other steps is the Commission planning to take to prevent government policy contributing in
any way to the massive inflation which is feared will occur on 1 January 2002, and which the
Commission explicitly denied would happen in its answer to Question E-4066/00?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

1.
The possibility of increasing fines in the Netherlands through the changeover to the euro, after initial
consideration, has been discarded by the Dutch authorities. The conversion will leave values unaltered or
marginally modify them, in the conversion process, strictly to the advantage of the public.

2. and 3. Most public authorities of euro area Member States commit themselves to setting a positive
example by organising the changeover of their tariffs in a neutral manner, requested among others by
European Federations in the agreement on good practices signed on 2 April 2001. Wherever the exact
value in conversion cannot be maintained the conversion process will always be to the advantage of the
public.

Price increase which normally take place at the beginning of the year will be introduced at the usual

4.
times. The introduction of the euro will not disrupt what are usual practices and deadlines.