WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. International fraud in the construction industry.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Netherlands, building industry, cartel, competition law, fixing of prices, fraud

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/81

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the seriousness of the problem and firmly
condemns racism and xenophobia, which are a direct violation of the principles of liberty, democracy,
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the Union
is founded and which are common to the Member States as stated in Article 6 of the Treaty on the
European Union.

The Commission presented in November 2001 a proposal for a Framework Decision (1), a legislative
instrument in the field of penal law to ensure that the same racist and xenophobic conducts are punishable
by the same penalties in all Member States and secondly, to improve and encourage judicial cooperation
by removing potential obstacles. The Commission’s approach on this issue is to ensure that racist and
xenophobic content on the Internet is criminalised in all Member States. The basic idea would be
contained in the principle, ‘what is illegal off-line is illegal on-line’. Moreover, the proposal also establishes
some minimum criteria as regards to jurisdiction for this type of offences. Negotiations on this legislative
instrument are going on in the Council.

Furthermore, Article 15 of the Electronic Commerce Directive (2) lays down that service providers who
store information supplied by and at the request of a recipient of the service need to expeditiously remove
access to the information once they are informed of the illegality of this information.

Recital 48 of the Directive introduces the possibility for Member States to require hosting service providers
to apply ‘duties of care’ in order to detect and prevent illegal activity.

At international level, eleven countries (cid:1) including nine Member States- have signed in Strasbourg on
28 January 2003 the Additional Protocol
to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime,
concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature, committed through the use of
computer systems.

The Safer Internet Action Plan also offers scope for funding action against racism (hotlines and awareness-
raising) and the Safer Internet Forum which is being set up under the Action Plan will discuss practical
ways of co-operating in this respect.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
(2) Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information

society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(2004/C 11 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: International fraud in the construction industry

(4 February 2003)

It has emerged from recent reports that building companies not only from the Netherlands but also from
other Member States, such as Germany and Belgium, have been involved in fraud in the construction
industry in the Netherlands. Firms from the Netherlands have also been involved in illegal agreements on
pricing and works in other Member States. There has been talk of systematic cartel agreements, price-fixing
and/or forgery, that have pushed up prices and resulted in the illegal sharing out of markets. These
practices have been highly damaging to governments and consequently taxpayers in a number of Member
States. The formation of cross-border cartels of this kind is in breach of European regulations.

Is the Commission aware of the situation?

C 11 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

If so, does the Commission think that cross-border cartels have been formed in breach of European
competition rules and that measures need to be taken in this sphere?

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the construction companies concerned?
What can be done to compensate the injured parties?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of cases of (alleged) fraud and price fixing in the construction market in the
Netherlands through the national competition authority (NMa) and the media.
It also heard of the
allegations that non-Dutch enterprises are involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that Dutch
enterprises are involved in foreign markets.

In cases of price fixing agreements that violate Article 81 of the EC Treaty either the Commission or
national authorities can treat the case. National authorities can also act upon national legislation, even
when trade between Member States is affected.

The NMa is investigating a number of these cases and keeps the Commission regularly informed of its
activities.

When the Commission has credible information on a cartel with an appreciable element of inter-Member
State trade involved, it will act upon this information or make sure a national authority will do so.

Community legislation does not foresee compensation for parties damaged by cartels. However, both
private parties and public parties can take civil legal action against perpetrators of price fixing on the basis
of national procedures. The Commission encourages parties to do so as it is another means of ensuring
adherence to Community competition rules.

(2004/C 11 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Financial subsidy for Grundig AG

The 14 December 2002 edition of ‘Europolitique’ mentions that the Commission has authorised the
Bavarian Government to put some EUR 40 million of subsidy into the German company Grundig AG.

The point is made that this subsidy’s sole objective is to allow the company to continue operating for six
months, during which it must reach a decision on its future, and present a plan for its restructuring or
liquidation.

It is also noted that Grundig AG was close to bankruptcy in August 2002.

Given that this is a company which owns factories in various EU countries, and specifically in Portugal,
and that it employs some 5 000 workers, can the Commission inform me as to the company’s current
financial situation and its future prospects?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission approved rescue aid to the Grundig AG, Nürnberg, on 11 December 2002. The notified
aid, a 90 % guarantee for a EUR 45 million loan from the German State of Bavaria, was destined to allow
Grundig to continue activities during six months while deciding about the future of the company.