WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/02 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Michiel van Hulten (PSE)and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission. Investigation of fraud by construction companies.
Date: 2002-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, award of contract, building industry, competition law, fraud, public contract, restriction on competition, unlawful agreement

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/29

(2002/C 309 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 March 2002)

Subject: The Beneš decrees in the Czech and Slovak Republics, European legislation and the acquis

communautaire

On Wednesday, 20 February 2002, the Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, replied to questions by
members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. In reply to a specific question
concerning the Beneš decrees, dating from the period 1945-1948, Mr Orban said that these decrees were
still in force in the Czech and Slovak Republics, but that, as they did not accord with European legislation,
they should be repealed before these two countries acceded to the EU.

Is the Council investigating whether the Beneš decrees are compatible with the acquis?

If so, what conclusions has it reached and when will we be informed of them?

If so, what will the Council do to ensure that the decrees can be repealed?

If not, will the Council have the matter investigated without delay and take the requisite action on the
findings?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the question whether the
Beneš decrees in the Czech and Slovak Republics might be compatible with Community law.

(2002/C 309 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Michiel van Hulten (PSE)
and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Investigation of fraud by construction companies

(5 March 2002)

Is the Commission aware of
the newspaper articles which appeared in the Haagsche Courant on
20 December 2001 (‘Bouwfraude is ook een zaak voor de Europese Commissie’ [Construction fraud is also
a matter for the European Commission]) and in the Volkskrant on 14 January 2002 (‘Fraude met
bustunnel onderzoeken’ [Bus tunnel fraud needs investigating] and ‘De Zuidtangent en het vluggertje van
300 miljoen’ [The Zuidtangent tunnel and the 300-million quickie]) concerning fraud by construction
companies in the Netherlands?

Were the public procurement procedures relating to the Schiphol rail tunnel and the construction of the
Zuidtangent bus tunnel in the Netherlands carried out in accordance with European public-procurement
rules?

Does the Commission still consider that a system whereby construction companies agree concerted
tendering arrangements amongst themselves (such that even construction companies whose tenders are
unsuccessful are compensated for the cost of tendering) violates Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (to the
extent that trade between Member States is affected)?

Would a statutory concerted-tendering system, which would make it superfluous for companies to enter
into agreements with one another on this subject, likewise violate the EC Treaty?

C 309 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

The Commission is aware that various questions have been raised recently as to the legality of the
behaviour of certain construction companies in the Netherlands and that the Dutch competition authority
is currently examining the matter.

It has no information liable to give rise to suspicions that the public procurement procedures relating to
the Schiphol rail tunnel and the Zuidtangent bus tunnel were not carried out in accordance with the
Community directives on public procurement.

The Commission takes the view that agreements between construction companies setting up a concerted
tendering system including compensatory payments restrict competition and, where such agreements are
liable to affect trade between Member States, violate Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. In this context the
Commission would remind the Honourable Members that it has already adopted a decision imposing a
EUR 22,5 million fine on 28 Dutch construction-sector associations which had entered into an agreement
to coordinate their competitive behaviour in the context of public or private procurement by competitive
tendering or private contract (Commission Decision 92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992) (1). The Commis-
sion’s decision was upheld by the Court of First Instance (2) and the European Court of Justice (3).

The Commission takes the view that national rules providing for concerted tendering could violate
it cannot take a final position on the issue without knowing the detailed
Community law. However,
provisions laid down by such rules.

(1) OJ L 92, 7.4.1992.
(2) Case T-29/92 [1995] ECR II-289.
(3) Case C-137/95 P [1996] ECR I-1611.

(2002/C 309 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0601/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Compliance on the part of the Maghreb countries with their human rights obligations as defined

in the EU Association agreements

Last year the Tunisian intellectual Mohammed Mouda was put on trial. In Algeria, the difficulties faced by
the government in resisting violent and extremist Islamicist groups notwithstanding, there are frequent
individuals with no
reports that
involvement with such groups.

the security forces are involved in the killing and abduction of

Is the Commission concerned that the Maghreb countries are failing to abide by their human rights
commitments as defined in the EU Association agreements, and, if so, will it give greater priority to this
issue in the future? In particular, will the Commission ensure that the most serious human rights abuses
are raised at the Association Council meetings? Can the Commission also indicate how frequently these
meetings take place?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

The Commission is indeed aware that the human rights situation in the Maghreb region (though differing
according to each country’s circumstances and problems) is unsatisfactory and leaves much room for
improvement. It shares the Honourable Member’s view that the legitimate and necessary struggle against
terrorism cannot be allowed to justify or cloak unjustified attacks on fundamental freedoms.