WRITTEN QUESTION P-2766/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. International building fraud.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Netherlands, building industry, control of restrictive practices, fraud, operation of the Institutions, supervisory power, unlawful agreement

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/137

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The EU strongly supports the diplomatic efforts undertaken by the six parties to achieve a solution to the
North Korean proliferation issue. The EU hopes that the process will soon lead to concrete steps to lower
tension in the region, including progress towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, a matter of
fundamental interest to the whole international community.

The EU remains willing to contribute to international efforts to move matters forward, and acts in close
consultation with the main players. It is considering how it could give support to the multilateral talks in
due course and in co-ordination with the capitals of the six countries involved.

(2004/C 70 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2766/03

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

(11 September 2003)

Subject: International building fraud

In January 2003 I put questions to the Commission about the possible involvement of construction firms
from Belgium and German in construction fraud in the Netherlands. These questions also mentioned the
possible involvement of Dutch firms in illegal pricing and labour agreements in other Member States.

The Commission states in its answer that the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMA) is investigating a
number of cases and informs the Commission about them on a regular basis. The Commission also stated
that it will take action if it is supplied with credible information on any cartel significantly influencing
trade between the Member States.

Has the Commission come to the conclusion, on the basis of information supplied by the NMA, that

1.
an illegal cartel has in fact been created?

2.

If so, has the Commission taken any measures in this connection?

Have any new cases concerning the possible creation of illegal cartels been notified by the NMA to

3.
the Commission?

4.

If so, what ruling has the Commission made on these cases?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

As mentioned in the reply to written question P-308/03 by the Honourable Member (1),
1. and 2.
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 learned of the
allegations that non-Dutch enterprises were involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that
Dutch enterprises were involved in foreign markets.

The Commission does, however, not intend to interfere with these ongoing investigations of the NMa in
the Dutch construction sector. The Commission understands that the possible involvement of foreign
companies is taken on board by the NMa in these investigations. Hence, the Commission has not started
separate formal investigations on the basis of the above information.

C 70 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Where the centre of gravity of an alleged infringement is in one Member State, the national competition
authority is often best placed to deal with such allegation. However, even in such cases, provided there is
an effect on trade between Member States, the Commission can decide that it is in the interest of the
Community to launch a Commission investigation into these practices.

For instance, the Commission currently investigates possible infringements of the European competition
rules in the sector of bitumen. This investigation (cid:1) that relates to cartels on national markets, including
the Dutch market (cid:1) concerns the practices of bitumen producers and their main customers, i.e. the road
construction companies.

3.
The NMa is not obliged to notify possible new cartel cases that it is dealing with to the Commission.
At the same time, it is established practice that the NMa informs the Commission about its ongoing cartel
cases that may be of interest to the Commission.

The Commission has not recently issued decisions which would have been initiated on the basis of

4.
information transferred by the Dutch competition authority.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 81.

(2004/C 70 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Orders placed by Greek Railways (OSE) with Hellenic Shipyards

According to Greek press reports and official statements, Hellenic Shipyards has announced that it is
unable to honour its contractual obligations within the agreed time limit to supply rolling stock (suburban
carriages, sleeping cars and passenger carriages, etc.) commissioned by Greek Railways on the basis of
programmatic agreements. These agreements which were signed at the end of 1997 and were worth some
GRD 180 billion contained penalty clauses and provided for compensation in case Hellenic Shipyards
failed to meet its obligations.

1. Would a failure of the Greek Railways to invoke the clauses and claim the compensation due from
Hellenic Shipyards in the event of a failure to honour the contracts placed with it on the basis of the
programmatic agreements cause legal problems in the field of competition or state aid?

Despite the fact that the placing of orders under the programmatic agreements between Greek
2.
Railways and Hellenic Shipyards was intended to support domestic industry and production and to support
employment, Hellenic Shipyards subsequently placed a large proportion of such orders (worth some
GRD 103 billion) with foreign companies. Does the Commission consider that the placing of orders with
third parties was in line with the terms of acceptance of the programmatic agreement?

Answer given by Mr. Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

1. Whether a failure of a public undertaking, such as the Greek Railways Organisation (OSE), to claim
compensation for breach of contractual obligations might constitute a measure which amounts to State aid
under Article 87 of the EC Treaty would depend on a number of factors such as the exact terms of the
agreement; regarding inter alia the deadline for delivery of the rolling stock, the penalty clauses for late
delivery or for non-delivery etc. The Commission does not, at this stage, have sufficient information on
these elements to answer the Honourable Member’s question.