WRITTEN QUESTION E-2591/01 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission. Private negotiation of a contract for the supply of a call centre service between the INPDAP and Telelcom Italian S.p.A..
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, award of contract, provision of services, public contract, restriction on competition, telecommunications

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/193

(2002/C 81 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2591/01

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Private negotiation of a contract for the supply of a (cid:145)call centre(cid:146) service between the INPDAP and

Telelcom Italian S.p.A.

In its Decision 1352 of 20 December 2000, the Board of Directors of the Italian social insurance agency
INPDAP, authorised the signing of a contract with Telecom Italia for the establishment of a (cid:145)call centre(cid:146).

This decision was taken on the basis of a private-treaty procedure.

However, it does not refer to any legislative provisions which would justify the use of his procedure.
Subsequently, the Board of Directors referred to Article 7(2)
(d) of Decree-law No 157/1995 which
authorises the award of public contracts on a private-treaty basis in cases of extreme urgency resulting
from unforeseeable circumstances, which make it impossible to apply the timescales required for open,
restricted or negotiated procedures involving publication of invitations to tender. The contracting authority
should in no way be responsible for the circumstances used to justify this extreme urgency.

However, the reference to this provision does not seem justified: (a) the services which the call centre is
supposedly required to provide as a matter of urgency have been planned for several years and will in any
case require an adjustment of the data bank which cannot be carried out rapidly; (b) even if we accept that
the situation has now become urgent, the contracting authority must in that case be held responsible for
the urgency, contrary to what
the INPDAP supervisory council
is stipulated in the law (moreover,
requested that the call centre be established by June 2000).

Given that the signing of a two-year contract with Telecom Italian involves the installation of operational
equipment as well as the recruitment and training of staff, it would be virtually impossible to subsequently
organise a tender procedure in which all bidders could take part on an equal footing. The (cid:145)call centre(cid:146)
operation conducted by Telecom Italia also involved the INPS and the INAIL on the basis of virtually the
same (cid:145)reserved(cid:146) procedure and timescale.

Does the Commission agree:

1.

2.

that Decision No 1352/2000 was illegal as regards the choice of procedure, and that given the scale of
the operation (approx. ITL 7 billion over a two-year period) excluding telephone costs incurred by the
contracting authority, well in excess of the ceiling laid down by Article 7 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1)), a
call for tenders should be organised at European level, pursuant to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
18 June 1992?

that, given the economic weight of the bodies involved in the (cid:145)call centre(cid:146) operation (INPS, INAIL and
INPDAP), Telecom is being placed in a dominant position on the basis of seemingly illegal acts over a
significant share of the market in new communication technologies?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

1.
The Commission has already opened an enquiry to check whether Community law on public
contracts was complied with in the case of the contract which was recently awarded by Inpdap to Telecom
Italia to provide a call centre service, as indicated by the Honourable Member. According to the
information currently available, it would seem that the award of this contract is not subject to the rules
relating to the choice of co-contractor as provided for in Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, to the extent that the
services in question do not seem, for the most part, to be included in the services listed in Annex IA of the
aforementioned Directive.

C 81 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

However, the contract in question must comply with the rules of the EC Treaty with regard to freedom to
provide services and freedom of establishment and also with the general principles of non-discrimination,
equality of treatment, proportionality and transparency. With regard to adhering to the principle of
transparency in particular, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that the obligation
of transparency incumbent on awarding authorities consists in ensuring that every potential bidder receives
a suitable level of information which enables the market for services to be open to competition and the
impartiality of the award procedures to be checked (see in particular the Judgment of 7 December 2000,
Case-324/98, Telaustria, § 61-62).

2. Moreover, the Commission has opened inquiries into contracts of a similar nature to the above-
mentioned contract concluded by Inail and Inps with Telecom Italia in order to ascertain the rules applied
in the award of these contracts and check that the procedures followed by these organisations to select the
contractor complied with Community law. Should the above-mentioned checks reveal that the procedures
followed by Inpdap, Inail and Inps may not have been compatible with Community rules and principles, in
particular the principle of transparency, this may result in the Commission applying the infringement
procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2002/C 81 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Introduction of legislation requiring drivers of motor vehicles to drive with their headlights
switched on during daylight hours and the implications for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians in
densely-populated areas

1.
Is the Commission aware that, in 1993, the Netherlands Parliament decided that drivers of motor
vehicles must not drive with their headlights switched on during daylight hours, a decision designed not
only to save energy but also to take account of the safety of the many cyclists in the Netherlands who,
according to the association which protects their interests, were seriously at a risk if motorists were able to
see each other better than the cyclists with whom they had to share the roads?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, although arguments in favour of motorists being required to
drive with their headlights switched on during daylight hours, as has been the case in Finland and Sweden
since the 1970s, lead to the conclusion that safety is indeed improved in thinly-populated areas with few
vehicles on long monotonous roads and in areas where the sun is low over the horizon, driving with
headlights switched on may deflect attention from cyclists and pedestrians in cities or towns such as are
frequently found in the Netherlands?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that, in the summer of 2001, it concluded an agreement of principle
with the European Automobile Manufacturers(cid:146) Association (EAMA) whereby, from 2002 onwards, all new
vehicles must be equipped with lighting systems whereby the headlights are automatically switched on
when the driver starts the engine, so that the headlights are switched on automatically when the vehicle is
driven during daylight hours?

4.
To what extent are the proven positive results of the requirement that headlights must be switched
on when vehicles are driven during daylight hours influenced by the fact that no comparison has been
drawn with the previous situation but rather with notional data based on a presumed negative
development in the future?

5. What possibilities will exist from 2002 onwards for individual Member States (cid:129) if they so wish (cid:129) to
prohibit the use of headlights when motorists are driving during daylight hours?

6. What possibilities will exist from 2002 onwards for individual motorists (cid:129) in compliance with the
decisions of their national legislator (cid:129) to switch off their lights when driving during daylight hours?

If the agreements concluded by the Commission to date do not make provision for the possibilities
7.
set out in Questions 5 and 6, what steps does it intend to take to ensure that Member States are not
prevented from seeking to achieve, in the circumstances obtaining in their countries, the highest possible
level of safety for as many road-users as possible?

Source: De Volkskrant (a Dutch newspaper) published on 8 September 2001.