WRITTEN QUESTION P-2890/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Substandard work on public projects funded under the 2nd CSF.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, administrative sanction, economic sanctions, financial control, public works

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2002/C 309 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Cost of translation and interpretation

Please indicate the cost of translation and interpretation in the EU in 1999 and estimate the cost in each
case, assuming the continuation of present language policies, if one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
nine, ten or eleven languages were added to the existing official languages.

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Further to its initial reply, sent to the Honourable Member in 2000, the Commission would add that the
additional expenditure for nine enlargement languages, according to the estimates made by the institutions
in the second report on Heading V of the General Budget of the Community (drawn up in May 2002),
would be:

In

2003

2004

2005

2006

(In million euro)

For translation

For interpretation

31

127

161

175

7,5

40

54

60

(2002/C 309 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2890/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Substandard work on public projects funded under the 2nd CSF

In its answer to my question No E-3481/00 (1), the Commission recognised that there were a wide range of
problems concerning substandard work on public construction projects in Greece funded under the 2nd
CSF.

C 309 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Does the Commission have any more recent information regarding the number of instances of substandard
work since April 2000, and the total for all projects funded under the 2nd CSF? Is the Commission
satisfied with the measures which Greece has taken to remedy such substandard work? If not, what
measures will the Commission take to tackle this wide-ranging problem?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 62.

(2002/C 309 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/01

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE)
and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Measures by the Greek authorities to tackle substandard work

The Commission has yet to reply to Written Question (P-2890/01 (1)) on the precise proportion of
In a reply to a previous question (E-2783/99 (2)) the
substandard work in public works in Greece.
Commission stated that ‘the findings show that 52 % of the projects are in order or have minor defects
which the contractors will rectify (project category 1); 45 % of the projects have major defects which do
not have safety implications but which will entail higher maintenance costs: these additional costs must be
deducted from payments to the contractors concerned (project category 2); 3 % of the projects have serious
defects which cannot be rectified: the contractors will have to redo these projects in full or in part and at
their own expense (project category 3)’.

In the same reply the Commission also announced that the Ministry of Economic Affairs (cid:1) as the
managing authority for the Community Support Framework (cid:1) had sent the 1 122 individual reports
drawn up by ESPEL in respect of projects with quality defects to the public authorities managing the
projects concerned and the chairmen of the respective monitoring committees, asking them to take the
action provided for by law. In 478 cases falling within project categories 2 and 3 referred to above, the
Ministry of Economic Affairs submitted the files to the public works inspectorate. Lastly, the 30 cases
falling within category 3 were sent direct to the public prosecutor’s office. Finally the Commission stated
that it would ask for detailed information on the practical action taken in each case (cid:1) i.e. the economic,
administrative or other penalties imposed.

Given that the attitude of the Greek authorities to this problem is a particularly serious issue, will the
Commission say:

1. Has it received information about the practical action taken in the cases falling within categories 2 and
3 referred to above? Can it say in respect of which projects economic, administrative or other
penalties have been imposed, and when? Is it satisfied with the way the Greek authorities have
handled the matter?

2. Have the Greek authorities forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office any communication on the
basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 (3) of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the
recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the
organisation of an information system in this field? If not, what will be the consequences and what
measures does it intend to take?

(1) See page 1.
(2) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 2.
(3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 43.

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions P-2890/01 and E-3197/01
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Members that, despite the reminder sent on 2 July, it has
not yet received an answer to its letter of 29 January 2001 to the Greek authorities asking for precise
information on action taken on files in categories 2 and 3 and any financial, administrative or other
penalties imposed.