WRITTEN QUESTION E-3325/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Drogheda Business Development Centre, Ireland.
Date: 2001-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Ireland, Structural Funds, application of EU law, co-financing, financial control, growth point, industrial development

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.

C 160 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Drogheda Business Development Centre received European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
support during the 1994-1999 programming period under the Interreg II Community initiative and the
local urban and rural development programme.

The failure of the project to become a fully functioning enterprise centre was identified in a control report
undertaken by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund control unit which was set up under Commission Regulation
(EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of operations co-
financed by the Structural Funds (1).

The Commission will keep in contact with the competent Irish authorities to follow the action being taken
and can consider, if appropriate, financial corrections.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(2002/C 160 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3336/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE)
and Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject:

’Third satellite’ building at Malpensa Airport and environmental impact assessment

Work is due to start very shortly on a new building, known as the ‘third satellite’, at Milan’s Malpensa
Airport, which will deal with the terminal’s aircraft docking systems, as well as all passenger and freight
loading and unloading operations. This building was authorised by Ministerial Decree 903/87 on the basis
of the same design and volume as the existing buildings. The foundations of the ‘third satellite’ were
therefore built in line with the design and volume of the first two.

The new building project, which has apparently been approved by the Ministry of Construction,
is
different from that approved in 1987 (Minister of Transport Decree of 13 February 1987, No 903/87 D
General development plan for Malpensa Airport) and provides for a new ‘third satellite’ whose height,
volume and passenger flow will be well in excess of the first two ‘satellites’, built in 1997-1998. According
to official statements, Malpensa’s capacity is due to increase from 20-22 million to 40 million passengers
(if not more) a year (1). The amended plans will result in a building which will differ substantially from the
original project. This is illustrated by the fact that the new plans for the building of the ‘third satellite’
actually provide for the demolition of the existing foundations, which were designed to carry the loads
expected under the 1987 project (two storeys and three levels), and not the five storeys and six levels
which are now being planned.

No environmental impact assessment procedure was conducted with regard to the ‘third satellite’ plan,
despite the fact that significant changes had now been made.

Recent requests for access to information on the subject have simply met with unspecific and evasive
replies from local mayors, the SEA (’Società Esercizi Aeroportuali’) and the Ministry of Transport.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the
‘third satellite’ infrastructure, in accordance with Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 97/11/EEC (3)?

Would the Commission not agree that Directive 90/313/EEC (4) on the freedom of access to information
on the environment has been circumvented?

(1) See La Prealpina, 28.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.