WRITTEN QUESTION P-1981/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Role of the Netherlands Broadcasting Corporation (NOS) in European rules on invitations to tender for Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) transmitters.
Date: 2003-06-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, broadcasting, equal treatment, invitation to tender, radio telecommunications, restriction on competition, television, tendering, trade licence

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/185

2. What amount of Cohesion Fund budgetary commitments for Portugal in 2003 will allow the country
the 2000-2006

to reach the annual average envisaged by the Berlin European Council
programming period?

for

3.

Supposing that the annual distribution of budgetary commitments for projects approved in the future
is the same as for the projects already approved, what would the total amount of the Community
contribution be for the projects which will have to be approved in 2003 in order to reach the average
referred to above?

(1) OJ C 123, 24.5.2003, p. 4.
(2) OJ C 123, 24.5.2003, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member indicates, Cohesion Fund assistance for the five Portuguese projects adopted in
2002 amounts to EUR 106 million, EUR 85 million of which is assigned to the 2002 budget, with the
remainder to be committed in subsequent budget years according to the state of advance of the projects.

On the basis of the midpoint of the indicative bracket applied to the commitment appropriations entered
in the budget
to
EUR 647 million: EUR 478 million relating to 2003 and EUR 169 million of appropriations for 2002
that could not be used.

the resources available for Portugal

for each financial year,

for 2003 amount

The sums committed or in course of commitment amount at the moment to around EUR 200 million. The
projects at present under examination could permit a maximum commitment of about EUR 240 million
were they all to be adopted in 2003. To absorb the target amount for 2003 Portugal would have to
present projects allowing commitment of a further amount in excess of EUR 200 million in order to
maintain a reasonable safety margin.

The answer to the Honourable Member’s third question depends on the commitment procedures for the
Community assistance.

Under the financial implementation rules commitments can be executed in two ways:

(cid:1) by annual instalments, in the case of projects where the aid is more than EUR 50 million and the

project realisation period more than two years;

(cid:1) otherwise, by a first commitment of 80 % when the project is adopted and a second of the remaining

20 % at a time depending on its state of advance.

In the first case the amount to be charged to each budget year depends on the financial plan drawn up for
the project. Thus unless the financial plans are already known it is impossible to determine the value of the
projects that will allow the amount available for 2003 to be reached.

In the second case the additional projects likely to be approved in 2003 should permit allocation of
assistance of at least EUR 260 million.

The amount to be committed following the approval of the new projects would of course be higher should
it not be possible to adopt all the projects now under examination.

(2003/C 280 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1981/03

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

(10 June 2003)

Subject: Role of the Netherlands Broadcasting Corporation (NOS)

in European rules on invitations to

tender for Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) transmitters

The Netherlands Broadcasting Corporation (NOS) has drawn up tender specifications relating to the
operating licence for the development and management of DAB transmitters. DAB (Digital Audio

C 280 E/186

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Broadcasting) is a digital audio standard in respect of which the NOS had held a licence for one terrestrial
multiplex since 1 February 2003. That operating licence will probably be granted to Nozema.

59 % of Nozema is owned by the Netherlands Government, 40 % by the NOS and 1 % by Radio Nederland
Wereldomroep (Radio Netherlands World Broadcasting Service). It is reported that there is a veritable
confusion of offices on the Management Board of the NOS and on the Administrative Board of Nozema.
The duality of offices in those bodies prompts serious doubts as to the independence of decisions taken
during the tendering procedure. The NOS states that the procedures set out in the European Directive on
the award of tenders are adequate to guarantee fair implementation. It also states that any connection
between members of the Management Board and of the Administrative Board and one of the bidders
cannot result in unlawful preferential treatment. However, by making that statement, the NOS itself admits
that preferential treatment cannot be ruled out.

Given that DAB has never been operational in the Netherlands in a regular set up, it is striking that the
tendering procedure shows that NOS gives preference to a service provider with proven experience when
all other considerations are equal. In 2001, Nozema won a contract from the NOS to develop a roll-out
plan for DAB. In 2000, Nozema was involved in DAB projects with regard to what is known as the
‘WebAnywhere’ project, in which the NOS also took part.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it take the view that Nozema has a possibly decisive competitive advantage in the award

2.
procedure compared with other bidders for the operating licence?

Does it take the view that, whenever fair competition and a level playing field between various
3.
bidders is involved, the prospects of DAB are enhanced and that this is desirable in the introduction of
new technologies such as DAB?

Does the Commission take the view that Nozema should keep separate accounts in respect of the
4.
public and commercial services that it provides, and is it prepared to verify with the Netherlands
Government that Nozema does indeed keep such separate accounts?

Does it take the view that the NOS is properly complying with European law on the awarding of

5.
contracts, and, if not, does it intend to take appropriate measures?

Is it aware that the Netherlands Government has exempted Nozema from the payment of company

6.
tax?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

1.

The Commission was not informed about this tendering procedure.

The Commission holds the opinion that on the basis of

2. and 3.
the
Commission has found no evidence of activities that indicate possible infringements of public procurement
legislation or relevant provisions of the EC-treaty.

the information provided,

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereafter: the Court) has ruled in the judgement C-94/
99 that:

… the mere fact that contracting authorities allow bodies which receive subsidies enabling them to
submit tenders at prices appreciably lower than those of the other, unsubsidised, tenderers, to take
part in a procedure for the award of a public procurement contract does not amount to a breach of
the principle of equal treatment.

the mere fact

that Nozema is participating in a public procurement procedure as an
Therefore,
organisation exempt
from paying corporation tax, nor the current situation regarding the state of
separation in the bookkeeping of Nozema, does in itself not constitute a breach of the principle of equal
treatment of tenderers.

The fact that the NOS is requiring past experience for qualification and Nozema has acquired such
experience, is not viewed discriminatory by the Commission as this does not exclude service providers in
other Member States to meet this requirement as well.

4.

The Commission would like to refer to the answer on the previous question.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/187

The Commission has concluded that, as mentioned before,

it has not found evidence of
5. and 6.
activities that indicate a possible infringement of public procurement legislation or relevant provisions of
the EC-treaty. This conclusion is based on all of the information provided by the Honourable Member.
The Commission, as guardian of the EC-treaty, shall however not hesitate to take action under Article 226
of the EC-treaty in case new evidence should provide proof for possible breaches of this legislation.

(2003/C 280 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Greek customs authorities’ unnecessarily lengthy procedure of collecting up EU citizens’ passports

at the border with Macedonia, a procedure that is also open to fraud

Is the Commission aware that in trains from Greece to Skopje in Macedonia and Belgrade in Serbia
1.
the passports of nationals of other EU Member States are collected up shortly after leaving Thessaloniki by
a person who is not recognisable as a Greek government official, and passengers are merely told that their
passports can be collected later from the police?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that at the police station in the Greek border town of Idomeni, where
the passports can be collected, nothing whatsoever is done with the passports and they are merely given
back after a waiting period?

Does the Commission agree with me that maintaining a procedure, which was also in force many
3.
years ago at this border, involves the risk of passports being collected by unauthorised persons, or of one
or more passports from the large number collected by an authorised person being lost, or of unattended
luggage left behind in the train being stolen?

Are citizens of EU Member States in fact allowed to hand over their passports to a person who is not

4.
recognisable as an authorised official or are they entitled to refuse to do so?

5. What is the point of this procedure other than the fact that requiring passengers to disembark and
wait generates customers for the duty-free shops in Idomeni station or that it delays traffic with a
neighbouring country whose name is considered undesirable?

6. What action can the EU take to speed up and normalise passports checks at this border, in particular
for EU citizens? What is the Commission doing to facilitate a solution?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the
Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.

(2003/C 280 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2030/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Geographical toll

The French authorities have announced their intention to levy a new ‘geographical’ tax on all heavy goods
vehicles within the country’s territory, over and above the motorway tolls already paid there.