WRITTEN QUESTION P-3323/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome.
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, award of contract, invitation to tender, public contract, transport network, urban transport

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/259

(cid:1) In the case of nationals of third countries not on the joint lists, Member States remain free to decide

whether or not to require an ATV.

(cid:1) The Commission is aware that certain Member States have recently made the ATV compulsory for
nationals of several third countries that do not appear on the joint lists. It notes that the introduction
of visas of this type was prompted by the need to step up action to combat illegal immigration and
avert threats to law and order and security.

(1) OJ L 63, 13.3.1996.
(2) All Member States except the United Kingdom and Ireland.
(3) Annex 3, Part I, of the Common Consular Instructions (CCI), OJ C 313, 16.12.2002.
(4)

In particular Andorra, Canada, Japan, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland and the United States: Annex 3, Part III, of
the CCI, ibidem, pp. 33-34.

(5) Annex 12 of the CCI, ibidem, p. 65.
(6) Council Decision 2003/454/EC amending Annex 12 of the Common Consular Instructions and Annex 14a of the

Common Manual on visa fees, OJ L 152, 20.6.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3323/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

On 30 June 1998 the public transport corporation of Rome, ATAC, issued a call to tender, via resolution
No 162, for the design, construction and installation of a new system of machinery for dispensing and
validating tickets. The requirements turned out to be particularly difficult to meet, as regards both the
technical specifications, which were way above normal market standards, and the extremely short
deadlines for completion, impossible for any of the candidates to meet using current technologies. The
penalty clauses for delayed completion were also unrealistic. For these reasons none of the firms invited to
tender did so, except for TSF, which was excluded by the contracting entity, and ERG Motorola, which was
thus awarded the contract. Can the Commission say whether it considers that this procedure complied
with the provisions of Directive 93/38/EEC (1), Article 18(5) of which stipulates ‘technical specifications
which mention goods of a specific make or source or of a particular process, and which have the effect of
favouring or eliminating certain undertakings shall not be used’? Can it also say whether it considers that
the call to tender complies with Article 23(5) of the same directive which states that the selection criteria
must be ‘clear and non-discriminatory’ and ‘sufficient to ensure genuine competition’?

After the contract was awarded to ERG the specifications were radically altered by decision No 11 of
25 August 1999 issued by ATAC’s sole administrator, whereby the above-mentioned conditions were
cancelled and replaced by contractual terms favourable to the contractor as regards both the technical
characteristics and completion dates, as well as the amount of the penalty. Furthermore, the specifications
of the machinery finally delivered by ERG do not in any way match those described in the call to tender of
1998. Does the Commission not consider that this behaviour infringes the rules on competition laid down
in Article 81(d) of the Treaty?

The contract for maintaining the machines was subsequently also awarded to ERG without a public
tendering procedure. This private arrangement was justified by the claim that the maintenance contract
was inseparable from the other one. ‘Expert’ opinions of dubious origin were used as documentation in
support of this argument. Can the Commission, within the scope of its competences, ensure that the
matter is investigated more thoroughly?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 138.

C 78 E/260

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

The Commission does not, at present, have the necessary information to assess whether the award of the
public contract by the ATAC public corporation mentioned by the Honourable Member was carried out in
accordance with Community law.

The Commission will therefore contact the Italian government to obtain the information required in order
to ascertain whether ATAC complied with Community rules and principles on public procurement in the
case in question. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission
will, in particular, check whether the procedures followed by ATAC on this occasion comply with Council
Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, which applies to public contracts awarded by
contracting entities which operate public urban transport networks. It will also check whether they comply
with the rules and principles in the EC Treaty relating to the completion of the internal market.

On the other hand, given that the question relates to public contract award procedures and not to
agreements which may be anti-competitive under competition law, the Commission does not consider that
Article 81 of that Directive is applicable in this particular case.

(2004/C 78 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3327/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Histomoniasis (blackhead)

At present, various European countries are affected by outbreaks of blackhead (histomoniasis). Infection
with this disease causes serious suffering to turkeys and ultimately massive mortality among them. As the
disease is not classified as an ‘A’ disease, there are no European rules on combating it and paying
compensation. However, there are European rules concerning possible prophylactics or treatments. Yet
since 31 March 2003, the last remaining remedy against the disease has been prohibited.

In view of the possible cross-border impact of blackhead, will the Commission introduce European

1.
provisions regulating measures against the disease?

2. Will the Commission under certain conditions (e.g. additional scientific information) temporarily
permit the use of the prophylactic Nifursol again?

3.
In the United States, Nitarsone (Histostat-50) is used to prevent blackhead. Will the Commission
shorten the test phase procedure for this new medicine so that, if the results are favourable, it can be used
as soon as possible? If so, when might it be possible for this product to be used?

Is the Commission aware that the antibiotic Metronidazole is currently approved for the treatment of
the

4.
parasitic infections in human beings but its use is not permitted in veterinary medicine? Will
Commission authorise the use of Metronidazole to treat the disease? If not, why not?