WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Hospital privatisation in Portugal.
Date: 2002-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, capital transfer, management, management accounting, medical institution, public sector, transport company

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/41

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

With the environment chapter in the accession negotiations provisionally closed for 10 candidate
countries, one transitional measure has been agreed by the Council for Malta in the application of
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, hereafter ‘Birds Directive’ (1).
No exemptions from the requirements of the Directive have been given and there are no transition periods
granted to any candidate country under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’ (2).

In agreeing to the recent Union Common Position on the environmental chapter Malta has accepted to
fully transpose and implement the Birds Directive by the date of accession. This means that bird hunting in
Malta can, as from accession, only take place within the limits provided for by the Directive. Article 9 of
this Directive allows, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for exceptions under certain very
stringent conditions. If Malta wishes to allow spring hunting, for instance in relation to turtle dove and
quail, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and that any permitting is
carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small numbers’ only. Furthermore, the use
of Article 9 is subject to monitoring by the Commission and Malta is committed, in such a case, to report
each year on its possible use.

As regards the specific issue of trapping, Malta is committed to ensuring full transposition by accession
and full respect of the provisions on trapping, even if in the short-term they need to be phased-in over a
strictly limited time. A transitional period until 31 December 2008 regarding Articles 5(a), 5(e), 8(1) and
Annex IV(a) of the Directive was granted by the Council and accepted by Malta at the Accession
Conference of 1 October 2002. The transition period allows Malta to employ traditional method of
trapping known as clap-nets for the capture of seven finch species in view of establishing a captive
breeding system.

In the past two months, the Commission has answered several written questions from the Parliament
related to the negotiations on the Birds Directive with Malta. The Member of the Commission responsible
for the Environment has undertaken to keep the Parliament informed of developments through the
Environment Committee. The Directorate General for Enlargement has sent updates on the accession
negotiations to the Chairman of the External Relations Committee of the Parliament, in April 2002 and
October 2002.

The Commission can confirm that it will closely monitor the situation in the accession countries as regards
the correct implementation and enforcement of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

It should be recognised that the accession of Malta to the Union will provide a greatly strengthened
framework for bird protection on the island by bringing it into conformity with the common standards
defined in the Birds Directive and already applied in all Member States.

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

(2003/C 222 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Hospital privatisation in Portugal

The newspaper ‘Diário Económico’ reported on 15 October 2002 that Portugal’s draft budget for 2003
includes a heading to the sum of EUR 662,1 million for the ‘privatisation of public hospitals’.

Reports publicly circulating suggest that the Commission has refused to endorse the inclusion in the
budget of capital transfers to public transport enterprises, on the grounds that such transfers are intended
to cover social costs and are not profit-seeking investments.

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.