WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/01 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE)and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Measures by the Greek authorities to tackle substandard work.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, administrative sanction, economic sanctions, financial control, public works

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.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/3

The Commission will repeat
examination of these files when the Community support framework for 1994-1999 is closed.

to those authorities and in all cases undertake a detailed

its request

The Honourable Members are requested to refer
to the answer which the Commission gave to
Written Question E-1894/01 by Mr Hatzidakis (1) concerning communications by the Greek authorities
under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 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 (2). Some of the additional information requested has meanwhile been
received under Article 5 of that Regulation.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.

(2002/C 309 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Funding of information campaigns in the applicant countries

What resources have been used to fund information campaigns and influence public opinion in each of the
applicant countries since they submitted their applications for EU membership?

Who have been the ten biggest recipients in each country? Will the Commission forward a list of all
recipients separately, stating the amounts received and the purposes for which funding was allocated?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Up until 1998, the Commission carried out its communication activities in the candidate countries largely
on the basis of funds provided from the budget of the former DGX (information policy). This involved the
Delegations participating in a number of public events, seminars, conferences and similar activities.

In 1998, the Commission launched an enhanced effort to inform the citizens of the candidate countries
about the Union. This communication strategy was implemented via one central contractor, funded by the
PHARE programme (Regulation EC 3906/89) and a series of sub-contracts in each candidate country. This
contract ended in December 2001. The activities have included the establishment of European Union
information centres in all capitals of the candidate countries, staffed by information officers responsible for
dealing with the public, either in person or via web sites that have been established. It also includes
assistance with the establishment by the local authorities of other information points, for example in
libraries, universities or town halls.

These centres are also involved in preparing brochures, fact sheets, and other material to explain the EU to
the citizens. They have helped organise debates, seminars, press conferences and so on, sometimes linked
to the partner countries’ own efforts. While the main focus of this effort was initially to inform the general
public about the EU, the launch of the negotiations has led to an increasing interest in the process and
consequences of enlargement. Hence the Delegations and their information activities have become
increasingly oriented towards explaining the decisions taken in the negotiations and providing information
about Community pre-accession assistance.

In May 2000, as a third pillar of the pre-accession strategy, the Commission launched a comprehensive
communication strategy involving activities in both the present and future Member States. This has
involved a change in the contractual situation, with Delegations assuming direct responsibility for the
contracts with their information companies.