WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Electronic identity cards and procedures for the award of public service contracts.
Date: 2002-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, award of contract, electronic document, identity document, invitation to tender, public safety, restriction on competition

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/239

Is the Commission aware of plans to finance the widening of the waterway from EU structural funds?

2.
If so, does it agree with these plans, and for what reasons?

In general, how important does the Commission believe it is to preserve the European nature reserve
3.
the development of which the Commission funded with
‘Lower Oder Valley’ under Natura 2000,
€ 3 380 500 under the LIFE programme? Does the Commission believe that lifting or downgrading the
conservation status of this area to allow for the widening of the river is compatible with the goals of
Natura 2000?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

1.
In September and October 2001 and in January 2002 correspondents informed the Commission
about the project. The information included inter alia an explanatory report of 30 March 2001 produced
for the public authorisation procedure (Erläuterungsbericht zum Planfeststellungsbeschluss). According to
this report the impact assessment under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora only indicated significant effects with respect
to the butterfly species Large Copper (Lycaena dispar).
It concluded that for this species additional
investigations had been initiated.

The correspondents were informed about the requirements of the protection regime under Article 6 of
Directive 92/43/EEC with regard to the project and about the possibility of submitting a complaint to the
Commission.

the beginning of

June 2002 the Commission received a complaint regarding this project and
At
subsequently a submission by local industry on the positive effects of this project. The Commission is
expecting the submission of additional information concerning the impacts on the protected areas to allow
for an in-depth assessment whether Community environmental law is being infringed.

According to the information received from the authorities of Brandenburg,

2.
the Hohensaaten
Friedrichstaler Wasserstrasse is a federal waterway and therefore no European Regional Development Fund
co-financing is involved in this project.

3.
The lowlands along the lower part of the river Oder are part of a Polish/German transboundary
nature reserve and represent one of the most extensive riverine wetlands of central Europe of outstanding
importance for the Natura 2000 network. The lower Oder valley has been proposed as a site of
Community importance under Directive 92/43/EEC and is subject to the protection regime as laid down in
Article 6 of that Directive. This protection regime includes a clear procedure for dealing with projects that
are likely to have a significant impact on the site’s conservation objectives. The Commission has not
received information indicating a repeal or reduction of the site’s conservation objectives.

(2002/C 277 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Electronic identity cards and procedures for the award of public service contracts

As part of the e-government programme in autumn 2000 the Belgian authorities decided that by 2005
every Belgian would be required to carry an electronic identity card.

C 277 E/240

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

The specifications outline the various stages in the manufacture of the electronic identity cards. A separate
set of specifications incorporates the general
invitation to tender for the manufacture, personalisation,
initialisation and distribution of the digital identity cards and the provision of certification services. One
document (special specifications RRN/006/2001, version 2.5, 11 February 2002), issued by the Ministry of
the Interior in conjunction with the General Legislation Board and the National Register of Institutions,
contained an ‘important remark’ to the effect that:

The manufacture of the cards, their personalisation and initialisation and the distribution of the
reference documents and the cards should be carried out on Belgian territory in such a way that the
competent Belgian authorities can carry out checks …

In accordance with European law on procurement policy, every firm must have an equal opportunity to
take part in a public tender procedure. Does the Commission take the view that the provision outlined
above is at odds with European public procurement policy?

If yes: what arguments will the Commission employ and what steps will it take to deal with this breach of
public procurement policy?

If no: what counterarguments does the Commission intend to deploy in order to demonstrate that
European public procurement policy is not being undermined?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2002)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission considers that a clause in a set of specifications
stating that the manufacture, personalisation, initialisation and distribution of digital identity cards must be
carried out on Belgian territory is at odds with Community legislation on public procurement.

The purpose of this legislation is to open up public procurement to companies in other Member States
and to help in this way to create an area without frontiers in which goods, persons, services and capital
can move freely.

The above-mentioned clause is, in principle, liable to make it more difficult for foreign firms to participate
in the tendering procedure and is thus likely to restrict the principle of freedom to provide services, as set
out in Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

It follows from Article 46 of the EC Treaty and the relevant case law of the Court of Justice (1) that this
principle does not prejudice the applicability of administrative provisions justified on grounds of public
policy, public security or public health, on condition that they are necessary for achieving the objective
and that this objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of free movement.

In its ‘Mannesmann’ judgment of 15 January 1998 (Case C-44/96), the Court of Justice considered that
documents such as passports, driving licences, identity cards etc. were closely linked to public order.

In view of this, certain checks on the manufacture and distribution of digital
justified for the protection of public order.

identity cards could be

In any case, without concrete information on the scope of the checks which the Belgian authorities wish to
carry out, the Commission is unable to give an opinion on whether such checks are necessary and
proportionate. The same applies to the requirement to manufacture and distribute such cards in Belgium,
since it is based on the need to carry out the said checks.

(1)

‘Commission v Italy’ judgment of 5 December 1989 (Case C-3/88).