WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Union tenders.
Date: 2003-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU body, EU institution, administration of the Institutions, award of contract, competition law, invitation to tender, refusal to sell

C 33 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

(2004/C 33 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: European Union tenders

Can the Commission confirm that, when a company in the EU wins a tender put by an EU body, the
tender is subject to Competition Law, and measures to increase the cost, which can include refusal by an
EU company to supply the winner of the tender and prevent parallel imports, are in breach of the Treaty?

Can the Commission confirm what sanctions would be imposed in such a case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission’s understanding of the Honourable Member’s question is that it refers both to the
European institutions’ obligations in the field of competition when awarding contracts, and to the situation
of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by another EU company.

When it comes to awarding contracts, the Community institutions are obliged to comply with the
provisions of the Council’s Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1), and
particularly Title V thereof which stipulates and describes the different procedures which are applicable.
Under these provisions, the contract should, generally speaking, be put out to tender on the broadest
possible basis among interested operators. The tendering stage ends with the award of the contract and
leads to a contract being signed with the successful tenderer.

As regards the situation of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by
another EU company and/or the prevention of parallel
imports, the situation in question may well
constitute an infringement of the provisions of Article 82 and/or Article 81 of the EC Treaty. Under certain
circumstances and certain conditions, the application of these rules may indeed lead to a ban on refusals to
sell and the prevention of parallel imports. However, the lack of information on the facts behind the
Honourable Member’s question means that the Commission is unable to take a useful position on the
applicability of Competition Law in this instance. For the same reason, the Commission is not able to give
its position on what sanctions might be imposed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2004/C 33 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1842/03

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Equal treatment of blood donors

Article 21 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits all forms of discrimination on
the grounds of sexual orientation or other similar grounds. The way in which the Finnish Red Cross Blood
Donor Service selects volunteers who come to give blood is, to my mind, inconsistent with that article
because it places people on an unequal footing according to their sexual orientation.

In Finland all blood donors have to answer the questions put to them by the Red Cross Blood Donor
Service. On the basis of the answers, the service nurse determines whether a person can give blood. The
Blood Donor Service observes Council of Europe Recommendation No R (95) 15.