WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/01 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Mestre loop road.
Date: 2001-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Veneto, award of contract, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, public contract, road building

C 160 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

initiatives aimed at
The producers’ association has therefore asked for authorisation for commercial
increasing external sales opportunities and undertaking promotion campaigns on the international market.

Can the Commission state whether,
in line with its actions on other occasions for other agricultural
products, it is willing to finance a campaign to promote wine consumption on both internal and external
markets, so as to enable the Spanish wine-producing sector to overcome its present difficult circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission has just adopted a decision approving the programmes to promote agricultural products
in non-member countries. The 18 programmes approved include two on Spanish wines with designations
of origin.

As regards promotion measures within the Community, the Commission will very shortly be submitting a
draft Regulation laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of
19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal
market (1) to the joint meeting of the management committees on agricultural product promotion.

Annex III to that draft Regulation sets out the guidelines on promotion in the wine sector.

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.

(2002/C 160 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Mestre loop road

According to recent reports in Il Sole-24 Ore (1), the Italian Government intends to award the franchise for
constructing and operating the Mestre Dolo-Quarto D’Altino loop road and the tunnel under the by-pass
direct to a consortium comprising Autostrade, Padova-Venezia and Autovie Veneto (the three companies
which already operate the motorways in the Venice area).

On the grounds that the Mestre Dolo-Quarto D’Altino loop road is to be regarded as an addition to an
existing motorway, such a step would enable an EU tender procedure to be avoided.

This would eliminate any possibility of an international project-financing tender based on the specifications
issued by the promoter = in this case a consortium led by Autostrada Brescia-Padova. It should be noted
that Italy’s state highway authority once before (in March 1999) directly awarded a franchise to Autostrade
SpA. This prompted intervention by the Commission, which halted the administrative proceedings by
means of an as-yet unfinished infringement procedure and which pointed out that the project could not be
exempted from the tender procedure since it constituted a new stretch of motorway.

Does the Commission not think that directly awarding a franchise for the construction of the Mestre Dolo-
Quarto D’Altino loop road would infringe EU laws on public procurement, such as Directive 92/50/EEC (2),
Directive 93/36/EEC (3) and Directive 93/37/EEC (4)?

(1) Sole-24 Ore, 17 October 2001: ‘No EU tender for Mestre loop road’; 25 October 2001: ‘Preparatory work begins

on Mestre loop road construction site’.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/97

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Commission has examined the potential direct award of the franchise for constructing and operating
the Mestre motorway loop road and tunnel to a consortium comprising three motorway operating
companies linking Mestre to the rest of Venice,
its compatibility with
Community legislation on public contracts and, in particular, with Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.

from the point of view of

In addition, following the presentation of a petition to the European Parliament, the Commission has, on
several occasions, expressed its doubts to the Italian authorities concerning the potential award of the
franchise concerned to the three above-mentioned companies without first putting it up for tender at
Community level.

It will be for the Commission to reach a final assessment on whether the award of the franchise in
question can take place.

(2002/C 160 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3325/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Drogheda Business Development Centre, Ireland

The Drogheda Business Development Centre (DBDC) Ltd was approved for public support from Interreg
and other indirect sources of EU funds on the grounds that it would be acquiring a property intended to
accommodate a much-needed enterprise centre for the town of Drogheda. It has been the subject of much
criticism, both in official reports (1) and in the media, and from official bodies like Enterprise Ireland.
Having now acquired the property, the organisation wishes to change its objectives and sell the whole
property for a profit in the booming property market, arguing that the proposed centre is neither viable
nor necessary. DBDC nevertheless claims that it will provide a centre elsewhere. However, other parties
have offered to buy the property or take over the project, so as to complete the centre, but all such efforts
have been rebuffed.

DBDC has already returned its grant from Partnership and shows every sign of returning all other grants
after the sale, which has now been agreed (2). However, the necessary authorisations for such a sale under
the granting agency agreements have not to date been forthcoming. Nevertheless, the result could be a
privately owned and controlled property development company holding over IRP 2 million, which would
be under no enforceable obligation to provide Drogheda with an enterprise centre. The Irish State would
then be forced to test its agreements in court, without any guarantee of success.

Does the Commission agree that it is not the role of public authorities, including the EU, to provide seed
capital in the form of grants, which later take the form of returnable loans, with a view to in effect
establishing such privately owned and controlled companies. Does the Commission consider it appropriate
that bodies managing public funds for public objectives should bind their Directors to absolute secrecy,
and use this and other means to exclude the representatives of civil society and all granting agencies from
their boards? Is the Commission now willing to advise the Member State to take out an injunction against
the sale to prevent abuse of EU funding, and force a return to the objectives of the project?

(1) Operational Programme for Local, Urban and Rural Development 94/99 Control Check report, ERDF & Cohesion
Fund, Financial Control Units, Department of Finance, Ireland, February 2001; Also undated ADM Ltd/Partnership
summary report.

(2) Page 3, DBDC Financial Statements for 2000: Post Balance Sheet Events. Since year-end, the Directors have entered
into a contract to dispose of its premises. The company has also, since year end, returned capital grants to
Drogheda Partnership Company Ltd.