WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Rules on tendering.
Date: 2002-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, European Commission, award of contract, competition law, image, invitation to tender

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/219

The Commission at present has no plans to promote the recognition of specific forms of preventive
treatment, given the fact the primary interest and responsibility in this area lies with the Member States
which decide on what action to take in accordance with their specific public health and other policies.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1979.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(3) Court of Justice, judgement of 1/1/2001 in case C-108/96 ‘McQuen’.

(2002/C 301 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Rules on tendering

What is the Commission’s response to the criticism of the EU’s rules on tendering made by Jesper Fabricius
and Rene Offersen of Lett & Co., reported in Børsen on 31 May 2002?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission obviously does not agree with Mr Fabricius and Mr Offersen’s generalisation according to
which the provisions of the Directives on public contracts are ‘incredibly rigid and formalistic … and
constitute the greatest obstacle to an effective policy on public contracts’. Nor,
is this
extremely negative view shared by Mr Treumer and Mr Vesterdorff (1), who, among other things, stress the
role of
the Directives in preventing discrimination between economic operators (cid:1) which is why
Mr Vesterdorff is in favour of lowering the thresholds in order to ‘increase transparency and equality in
competition’.

incidentally,

It should also be borne in mind that a study carried out in 2000 by two French financial inspectors,
Mr Bayle and Mr Jochum, in, inter alia, eight Member States has shown that correct application of the
rules on tendering permits savings of between 5 % and 30 %, depending on the Member States and the
type of goods purchased.

Apart from making this generalisation, the article stresses the need for dialogue with the economic
operators, especially where particularly complex contracts were concerned (cid:1) such as contracts for
computer equipment (cid:1) and for flexibility as regards technical specifications. The Commission realises that,
in certain cases, it would be desirable to introduce scope for dialogue (cid:1) in an appropriate context in order
to safeguard the principles of equal treatment and transparency (cid:1) in connection with the award of
particularly complex contracts. This is why, as part of the reform of the rules on public contracts currently
under way, it has proposed a new ‘competitive dialogue’ procedure that could be used for the award of
such contracts.

The policy agreement reached on 21 May 2002 also confirms the Commission’s intention to place
technical specifications based on specific standards and those defined in terms of performance on an equal
footing, while guaranteeing that the basic principles of Community law on public contracts are respected
in both cases.

The Commission can therefore, only endorse Mr Fabricius’ wish that the future Danish Presidency will give
high priority to this matter and also hopes that this matter will soon receive a second reading.

(1) Mr Treumer, Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School [Handelshøjskole], and Mr Vesterdorff of the

Danish Federation of Crafts and Small Industries [Håndværksrådet] are both also quoted in the article.