WRITTEN QUESTION E-1429/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delay in supplies of railway equipment rolling stock by European legislation.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, common transport policy, competition law, delivery, rail transport

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/109

Does it not consider that effective cooperation should be established in this field with the ACP States, in
the spirit of the partnership agreement with the EU actually signed in Cotonou, to include initiatives
involving local police forces, in order to tackle the problem more decisively?

Does it not consider that there is an urgent need to call on the governments of the Member States to
assign specific competences to Europol to combat trafficking in children?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Commission has explained its actions and comments on the problem of child trafficking in its answer
to Oral Question H-0432/01 by Mrs Kratsa during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s May 2001 part-session (1).

Europol already has the competence to combat child trafficking according to the Europol Convention of
26 July 1995 (2), article 2 §2 of which stipulates that (cid:145)in order to achieve progressively the objective
immigrant
mentioned in paragraph 1, Europol shall
smuggling and trade in human beings(cid:146).

to prevent and combat

initially act

illegal

((cid:133))

Trafficking in human beings is one of the priorities of Europol. The Community Police Chiefs Operational
Task Force discussed the subject at its meeting on 8-9 March 2001. They invited Europol to organise
expert meetings, elaborate threat assessments and open Analysis Work Files.

The Commission submitted proposals for a Council framework decision on combating trafficking in
human beings and on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (3) to the
Council on 30 November 2000. The aim of these proposals is to remedy the absence of commonly
adopted definitions, incriminations and sanctions in the Member States(cid:146)penal legislation on these issues in
order to develop an efficient judicial and law enforcement co-operation. These proposals are currently
under examination by the Council and the Parliament.

(1) Oral answer, 15.5.2001.
(2) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995.
(3) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1429/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Delay in supplies of railway equipment rolling stock by European legislation

1.
Can the Commission confirm that, with increased demand for passenger transport, it is becoming
difficult for railway companies to obtain new rolling stock (rail-cars and train units) since the delivery time
is three years even for an existing item?

Is the Commission also aware that the first year of this three year delivery period is taken up with

2.
fulfilment of the preliminary conditions for eligibility to participate in European tendering procedures?

As things now stand, what is the minimum amount of time taken between the decision to purchase

3.
new rolling stock and conclusion of a contract with the supplier?

4. What possibilities exist for introducing an accelerated procedure for ordering existing rolling stock
from a supplier from whom such equipment has already been obtained on one or more previous
occasions?

5. What action is being taken by the Commission to achieve a significant reduction in the waiting times
caused by European legislation, so as to enable railway companies provide a more rapid and flexible
response to the growing demand for increased rail capacity?

C 364 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

As regards the opinion of the Honourable Member that, as a result of the application of the public
procurement legislation, a twelve month period is effectively lost in relation to contracts for the supply of
trains, the Commission would like to make the following observations.

The applicable directive, Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement
procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (1) as
modified by Directive 98/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 16 February 1998 (2) obliges
contracting entities falling within the scope of this directive, to issue a (cid:145)call for competition(cid:146) in order to
open up the European market and to create genuine competition.

The Directive contains a rather flexible system and foresees three different possibilities for contracting
entities to make this call for competition, being: by means of a contract notice, by means of a periodic
indicative notice or by means of a qualification system.

The Directive imposes time limits, the purpose of which is effectively to guarantee that there can be
genuine competition. The time limits must therefore be sufficiently long to enable interested parties to
submit valid tenders, taking into account the various factors (complexity of the contract, etc.) mentioned in
the provision. These time limits are considered minimum periods and must be complied with. Where the
complexity of a specific contract requires, a longer time limit should be defined by the contracting entity.

it can choose to apply the open, restricted or negotiated procedure.

If a contracting entity chooses the first possibility for a call for competition, namely publication of
a contract notice,
In the open
procedure, the time limit for receipt of tenders has to be 52 days, which may be shortened to 36 days
where contracting entities have published a periodic indicative notice which is not used as a call for
competition. In restricted and negotiated procedures, the directive prescribes that as a general rule, the
time limit for receipt of requests to participate in the procedure shall be at least 37 days from the dispatch
of the notice and shall in any case not be less than 22 days (or in exceptional cases: 15 days). To this time
limit, the time limit for receipt of tenders must be added. The directive provides for this time limit to be
fixed by mutual agreement between the contracting entity and the selected candidates. Where no
agreement is reached, this time limit shall be at least three weeks and in any case not less than ten days
from the dispatch of the invitations to tender.

When publishing a periodic indicative notice which serves as a call for competition, a contracting entity is
bound to respect the same time limits as those set out above and which are applicable to restricted and
negotiated procedures.

A qualification system enables contracting entities, after publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities, to establish a list of selected suppliers, contractors or service providers. For individual
contracts, the contracting entity can invite the previously selected candidates to tender. The time limit for
receipt of tenders is the same as for the open or negotiated procedure: either fixed by mutual agreement,
or, if no agreement is reached, three weeks and in no case less than ten days from the dispatch of the
invitations to tender.

Such a qualification system enables the contracting entities to save time for each individual contract as the
selection phase has already been undertaken. At the same time, this enables the contracting entity to take
into account previous experience in the field, which is a legitimate criterion for assessment of candidate(cid:146)s
capacity.

The above shows clearly that in no case will one year be (cid:145)lost(cid:146) because of a European tender procedure.
Indeed the time limits to be respected vary from about eight weeks (the longest time limit) to about three
weeks or, where there is mutual agreement between the contracting entity and the candidates, even less
than three weeks.

This time limit is not to be regarded as (cid:145)wasted(cid:146) time, since,
irrespective of whether the directive is
applicable, for every purchase of a considerable sum, a contracting entity will have to consult the market
in order to assess the different options which exist for fulfilling its needs.

The Commission therefore considers that the existing system, which lays down minimum time limits in
order to guarantee that genuine competition is created and at the same time guarantees that candidates
have a real opportunity to compete for the contract in question, allows for sufficient flexibility. Contracting
entities may choose how to carry out a call for competition according to what best suits the situation.
Moreover, the Commission is of the opinion that the applicable time limits do not unnecessarily delay the
tender procedures.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/111

The Commission does not therefore envisage introducing changes in the existing legislative system to
reduce the time limits set out in the directives.

in the proposal

the Commission underlines that

In this respect
the existing
legislation (3), adopted by the Commission on 10 May 2000, the applicable time limits are essentially the
same. The only modification is a reduction of time limits where electronic means are used for dispatch of
notices or where the contracting entities offer direct access to the specifications (and to other contract
documents) free of charge via the Internet. The new provisions introduce the general rule that for specific
phases of a tender procedure the time-limits may be shortened where notices are sent by electronic means.
This mechanism takes into account the advantage deriving from rapid publication in the case of electronic
transmission.

for modification of

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.
(3) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Illegal issue of visas and passports and entry of third country nationals into Greece and the EU

According to Greek press reports and allegations by the largest Greek opposition party, thousands of
people from the countries of the former Soviet Union have illegally obtained visas and Greek passports
and entered Greece. A committee of inquiry into the elections in Greece found that thousands of persons
have been illegally naturalised although they were not entitled to Greek nationality. It should also be
pointed out that despite Greece(cid:146)s full participation in the Schengen acquis, a large number of violations
have occurred (5 000 illegal naturalisations have been established at the Moscow consulate), and wanted
Russian criminals illegally supplied with Greek passports have been arrested in Spain; there have also been
allegations from Tiflis in Georgia where 150 Georgians a day apply for passport visas to enter Greece,
visas which they obtain from circles operating in the vicinity of the Greek consulate in Tiflis. In Russia and
in Georgia popular TV channels (for instance, Iveria and Rustavi 2 in Tiflis) carry advertisements providing
information on how to obtain a visa and a Greek passport.

What is the Council(cid:146)s position on these violations of Community rules by illegal naturalisations and the
illegal issue of visas and passports and the entry into Greece, and thus the EU, (by unorthodox means) (cid:129)
and residence there (cid:129) of thousands of persons on the basis of the Schengen acquis? How many visas,
passports and naturalisations have been granted by the Greek authorities over the last few years, and what
information is available concerning the illegal
issue of visas and passports? What measures does the
intend to take to eradicate practices which undermine the wholly desirable policy of legal
Council
immigration to the EU by evading controls, practices such as those of Greek Government and Diplomatic
Corps officials who have abused their position and (cid:129) despite the allegations brought against them (cid:129)
facilitated the illegal entry into the EU of thousands of citizens of the former USSR? Given that there has
been a violation of the Schengen Agreement, have penalties been imposed on them by the Greek
authorities responsible and, if so, what penalties?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council attaches importance to the fight against document fraud. That is why experts have long
1.
been meeting in the Council working parties to exchange information and examine initiatives and
proposals on the matter. However, under Community law as it currently stands, questions relating to
naturalisation fall within the competence of the Member States, and not the Council(cid:146)s. The Council is not
empowered to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the spheres of competence granted
to it by the Treaties.