WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Mountain guides.
Date: 2001-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: drafting of EU law, mountain, professional association, recognition of diplomas, sport, tourism, vocational training

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/255

people. Wärtsilä justifies its decision on the grounds that it wants to concentrate production in, among
other places, Trieste, Italy, where, it is claimed, production conditions are better, despite the fact that the
company recently invested several million in its Zwolle plant.

Is the Commission aware of any direct or indirect State aid being given by the regional or national
authorities in Italy to the Wärtsilä plant in Trieste, and is it prepared to conduct an in-depth investigation
into the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission has no information on state aid planned or given by the Italian authorities to Wärtsilä.

But the company’s Italian subsidiary has establishments in an area eligible for regional aid under the
derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) (San Dorligo della Valle , Trieste).

By Decision of 20 June 2001 on the Italian regional aid map, the Commission authorised aids of up to 8 %
of investment in net grant equivalent (NGE) (1).

It is accordingly legitimate for Italy to give regional aid of an intensity of no more than 8 % expressed in
terms of net grant equivalent on the basis of one of its schemes, and there is no need for prior
authorisation. The condition for such aid is that the amount or the investment financed must not exceed
€ 50 million, which means that the Italian authorities must give the Commission prior notification under
the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (2).

The Commission will check with the Italian authorities whether the firm has received illegal aid in excess
of the maximum allowed.

(1) Net grant equivalent is defined in the Guidelines on national regional aid (OJ C 74, 10.3.1998).
(2) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Mountain guides

Professional mountain guides have existed since people first started climbing in Europe, and the profession
itself has grown and developed as mountain climbing has become more popular over the years. It is
already covered by Community legislation on professions and the freedom of movement of workers. With
a view to ensuring in particular that clients can have confidence in their guides, the International
Federation of Mountain Guide Associations long ago established a set of uniform training standards which
ensure that guides have the necessary technical skills for each type of ascent and the thorough practical
knowledge of the terrain required, in particular, to ensure safety at all times.

When the current directives are revised, how does the Commission intend to ensure that the specificities of
mountain guiding are accorded proper recognition?

C 115 E/256

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

the recognition of qualifications.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has just completed a consultation
exercise with professional associations in order to seek their opinions on drawing up a new directive in the
field of
It has also received contributions from the Commission
européenne des accompagnateurs en montagne (European mountain leaders committee) and the Syndicat
National français des Guides de Montagne (French national mountain guides union). The Commission is at
the stage of analysing the results of the consultation and drawing up proposals. In accordance with the
timetable set, the Commission will adopt a position before the Barcelona European Council in spring
2002.

(2002/C 115 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: The direct awarding of feasibility study contracts in Greece

According to Greek press reports, the national authorities have decided to award directly a feasibility study
contract of Drs 4,1 billion to the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava relating to projects surrounding the
site of the Olympic stadium in Athens, works within the stadium and the electric rail link with the future
suburban rail service.

Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts stipulates tendering procedures for the award of feasibility study contracts and authorises the
direct award of such contracts only in emergencies, for example major natural disasters or if the service in
question can only be provided by one specific person or if it relates to the protection of intellectual
property rights. It is noteworthy, however, that none of the conditions laid down by the Council directive
appear to apply regarding the direct awarding of the feasibility study contract to Mr Calatrava, thereby
excluding dozens of other eminent architects throughout Europe from a tendering procedure which
should, under normal circumstances, have been announced and organised by the Greek authorities in a
manner entirely above reproach.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation? Does it consider that any infringement of Community
it apply to Greece if
legislation has occurred? If so, what steps will
appropriate?

it take and what sanctions will

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

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it is aware of the award by negotiated
procedure without publication of a notice to the Spanish architect, Santiago Calatrava, of a series of studies
in connection with the preparations for the Athens Olympic Games in 2004.

The Commission has already contacted the Greek authorities with a formal request for information and
clarification on the matter. In their written reply, the Greek authorities confirmed the facts and justified
their decision to proceed in such a manner on the basis of the exceptions referred to in Article 11 (3) (b) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of
(c) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
public service contracts and Article 20 (2)
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and
telecommunications sectors (1). According to the provisions in question, the awarding authorities may
resort to a negotiated procedure without publication of a notice to award a contract for services when, for
artistic reasons, the services may be provided only by a particular service provider.