WRITTEN QUESTION E-3052/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Implementation of water purification plant contract in Sanski Most (Bosnia).
Date: 2002-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, contract, contractual liability, hydraulic works, water treatment

C 222 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In these circumstances, can the Commission state whether it endorsed the inclusion in the budget as
financial assets of the transfers made under the heading of ‘hospital privatisation’ in 2002, and whether it
will do the same for 2003?

If the Commission endorses those measures, will it justify its position on the grounds of the profitability in
business terms of the Portuguese public hospitals, by contrast with the presumed unprofitability of the
publicly funded transport enterprises?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Last Spring 2002, Eurostat analysed the capital injections into public transport enterprises in Portugal and
has concluded to treat these payments as capital transfers instead of financial transactions, because these
payments were made to cover repetitive losses of these enterprises.

However, Eurostat does not interfere in the preparation of the national budgets. It examines actual deficit
and debt data. The payments foreseen for 2002 for the new model for management of hospitals will be
analysed in the March 2003 notification of debt and deficit of Portugal.

Eurostat will also examine the appropriate sectoral classification of hospitals according to the European
System of national and regional accounts (ESA 95) rules.

(2003/C 222 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3052/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Implementation of water purification plant contract in Sanski Most (Bosnia)

On 23 November 2000, work on a water purification plant in Sanski Most (Bosnia) was stopped. The
project was being carried out with the assistance of the European Commission, represented through its
Sarajevo Office. The other contractor was Purac AB Company of Sweden, represented in Sarajevo by WTE
Company Sarajevo. The works sub-contractor was Elektrometal Cazin.

The work was closed down by Purac AB/WTE. Elektrometal was then approached by a Mr Magowan from
the offices of Carlo Lotti & Associati, asking it to continue to carry out the work. Elektrometal was initially
required to assume responsible for maintenance work on the building site. The undertaking remained
responsible for this at least until 2 August 2001.

Work was not resumed, even although Elektrometal had always indicated that it was prepared for that to
happen. In a number of letters to different individuals and organisations (cid:1) not least to Purac AB itself (cid:1)
Elektrometal also pointed out that it had payments to itself outstanding of some EUR 147 000, not
including interest payments on the delay and compensation for breach of contract. There are good reasons
to assume that the amount outstanding has still not been paid to its rightful recipient.

Can the Commission give an account of the above matter and state what action it has taken or will take to
ensure that the all contracting parties to this project will secure their rights and/or comply with their
obligations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

In accordance with the principles of fair competition and transparency, the remaining works for the Sanski
Most Water Treatment Plant were subject to a tendering procedure. Therefore, the Commission could not
accept the offer submitted by Elektrometal to resume the works.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/43

The company Elektrometal, which was a sub-contractor to PURAC/WTE, has informed the Commission’s
Delegation several
their outstanding claims vis-a-vis PURAC/WTE. As this concerns a
contractual relationship between Elektrometal and Purac, the European Commission cannot intervene in
this dispute between two private companies.

times about

(2003/C 222 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3079/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Winding up of the investigation into international involvement in fraud with subsidies for flax

growing in Spain and introduction of measures to avoid a repetition

1.
Does the Commission recall that in the fraud involving subsidies for the cultivation of flax in Spain
not only Spanish enterprises were implicated but also firms established in Belgium and Portugal, and that
these firms played an important role in obscuring as far as possible the relationship between production,
transportation, processing, marketing and subsidies?

2.
The report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) referred to in the Commission’s answer to my
question E-0243/01 (1) was forwarded to Parliament and the Commission on 19 March 2001; has there
since been a more in-depth investigation of the firms from outside Spain mentioned in paragraph 1 and
their activities?

Has such an investigation now been concluded? If not, when will findings be available to allow

3.
conclusions to be drawn as to how such activities can be prevented from occurring in the future?

4. What lessons can be learnt from this investigation, or what lessons have since been drawn by the
Commission, to prevent a repetition of this kind of fraud in the future?

Is the Commission aware of other cases in which EU subsidies have been obtained by obscuring the
5.
links between firms and organising trade and transportation across the EU’s internal borders in a way that
allows the measures to check whether subsidies have been properly allocated to be evaded in practice?

6. What further measures is the Commission taking, if appropriate, to prevent complex and obscure
situations of this kind, which can lead to subsidies from the EU’s financial resources being granted
unlawfully, from arising again?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 205.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

1. to 3. According
to information supplied by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), firms established
in a number of Member States are indeed referred to in OLAF’s final report on its investigation in Spain.
OLAF carried out a separate but related investigation into the arrangements applied to flax in Portugal, the
final report on which was sent to Portugal and the Commission on 26 March 2002. The authorities
involved in the two Member States have started a judicial investigation into the points raised. The OLAF
investigation established that no subsidies were paid in Belgium.

With regard to the administrative and financial aspects of the arrangements for the flax industry in Spain,
the Commission wrote to the Spanish authorities informing them that
there would be a financial
correction. It asked the Portuguese authorities to inform it of the measures taken to counteract the cases of
fraud detected by OLAF. The reply from Portugal is under review.