WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Tendering processes for development and humanitarian assistance.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, award of contract, development aid, humanitarian aid, invitation to tender, management audit

C 84 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that a revision of Regulation
(EC) 258/97 will be undertaken in the course of 2004 in order to remedy any problems raised in the
context of the application of the Regulation and ensure legal certainty and clarity for operators and public
authorities.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and

novel food ingredients, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.
(3) Commission Decision 2003/426/EC of 5 June 2003 authorising the placing on the market of ‘noni juice’ (juice of
the fruit of Morinda citrifolia l.) as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and
of the Council, OJ L 144, 12.6.2003.

(4) Commission Recommendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of
information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food
ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation EC No 258/97 of the European
Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 253, 16.9.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Tendering processes for development and humanitarian assistance

Would the Commission comment on how many Member States have less rigorous controls on tendering
than those operated by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

All public contracts undertaken by a Member State for pecuniary interest are subject to the EU Public
Procurement Directives (1) provided their value exceeds the threshold set in the relevant directive. This
includes contracts financed through bilateral development aid granted by the Member States to which the
contracting authorities belong and under whose financial responsibility the tender is organized.

Following a complaint, the European Commission carried out an extensive enquiry into the procurement
practices of all 15 Member States concerning purchases financed by development aid, which led to the
opening of a number of infringement procedures. Indeed, it appeared that some Member States used to
make the grant of aid to developing countries conditional on the purchase of goods, services or works
originating from the donor country (‘tied aid’). Pursuant to the Commission’s enquiry only four Member
States are still in the course of taking steps to remedy infringements to public procurement law.

As regards development aid granted by the Commission itself, specific provisions apply in accordance with
the Financial Regulation (2), the Implementing Rules for the Financial Regulation (3), the General Regulation
for service, supply and works contracts financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) (4) and the
Financial Regulation applicable to the 9th EDF (5). Detailed provisions on controls on public procurement
are applied in this framework.

As regards humanitarian aid granted by the Member States, the Commission is not at this stage aware of
problems linked to the way Member States organize tender procedures. As far as Community humanitarian
aid is concerned, the Commission has adopted, as stipulated by Article 238(3) of the Financial Regulation’s
Implementing Rules, specific procurement procedures, which are contained in Annex V of the Framework
Partnership Agreement applicable to humanitarian operations. These procedures share the objectives of

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/71

economy and efficiency with other external actions (best value for money, price-quality ratio, absence of
conflict of interests). However, they introduce a certain degree of flexibility linked to the specific nature of
humanitarian aid. These new rules have been favourably received by the non-governmental organisation
(NGO) community as a major improvement as compared to the previous practices.

(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
service contracts, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
the award of public supply contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.
(4) Decision No 2/2002 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 7 October 2002, OJ L 320, 23.11.2002.
(5) Council Regulation of 27 March 2003, OJ L 83, 1.4.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Payable Internet services

One of the main Italian providers has made its Internet and e-mail services subject to payment since
11 November this year. From now on all those who want to continue using its services will have to pay an
annual fee of around EUR 30.

This is a worrying sign of the direction in which Internet providers are moving. There is a tendency
towards privatising the Net, which runs counter to the programme announced by the European Council in
Lisbon. Furthermore, users only knew about the introduction of the new system when they were denied
access to their own data and were asked to pay for the service, without a clear warning from the provider.

1. What steps will the Commission take to ensure free access to the Internet for European citizens?

Does the Commission not consider that the behaviour of the Italian service provider referred to
to handle their private

to the people who trusted it

2.
above is a blatant abuse and detrimental
correspondence?

Does the Commission not consider that this action is contrary to the proposals announced by the

3.
European Council in Lisbon regarding the creation of a knowledge-based society?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

1.
The Commission believes that efficient and unencumbered access to new electronic communication
services, including Internet services, can best be achieved in the first instance by there being an open and
competitive market for such services. This is part of the basic motivation behind the common regulatory
framework for electronic communications and services adopted last year and now being implemented
within the Member States.

2. Much of the Internet, and indeed its content and services, are the result of private investment. It is
not unreasonable to expect that private companies will aim to make a return on that investment, as they
would with any other investment. The Internet has permitted a range of commercial and non-commercial
models to co-exist. Some of the models involve direct payment by consumers and some others are
financed by advertising. It is not unusual for service providers to change their terms and conditions, and
this can include charging for a particular service. If however this were done in an abusive way, for example
without adequate warning,
then the matter could be taken up with the local consumer protection
authorities, for example.