WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delay in deepening and widening the River Maas north of Maastricht due to objections to gravel quarrying under negotiated contracts.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, application of EU law, award of contract, dredging, environmental liability, invitation to tender, negotiated contract, watercourse, works contract

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/619

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3645/03 and E-3646/03
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Within the recent agreement with Morocco on the import of agricultural products, quotas have been
determined on the basis of traditional patterns on flows. Morocco has exceeded the quota fixed in the
Association Agreement for the export of courgettes. However, this has caused no disturbances in the
Community market, nor has any operator or country presented complaints. Moreover, the relevant data
has been regularly supplied to the Management Committee of Fruit and Vegetables. Therefore,
the
Commission did not deem it necessary to take action as there is no case for fraud or other misgivings, the
excess import quotas being the result of an increased demand for courgettes in the Community.

An impact study was conducted in 1997. In 2002, the Council formally asked the Commission to produce
another study on the impact of the liberalisation of the Mediterranean agricultural products on the bilateral
negotiations on agriculture. A reference to this study has been included in the conclusions of the meeting
of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs which took place in Naples on 2/3 December 2003.
This study has been finalised recently and is available on (www.femise.org).

The Commission is perfectly aware of the particular sensitivities linked to the Mediterranean products. For
this reason, it informs the players involved at regular intervals, in the context of the various Management
and Consultative committees and through the different Council working groups.

(2004/C 78 E/0655)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Delay in deepening and widening the River Maas north of Maastricht due to objections to gravel

quarrying under negotiated contracts

Is the Commission aware that the decision by the Netherlands, in response to the repeated floods in
1.
the area of the River Maas along the Dutch-Belgian border north of Maastricht, no longer to resort to the
traditional method of preventing periodic inundations, namely raising dykes, but that instead deepening
and widening the river bed and adjoining land could result in more sustainable nature management?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that the implementation of this Maas Border Project, whose cost is
estimated at EUR 450 million, is being delayed because the Commission wishes a public invitation to
tender to be issued, whereas the Netherlands prefers to negotiate contracts privately, in which connection
the quarrying of 50 million tons of gravel forms part of the cofinancing by regional private undertakings
without any money changing hands?

3.
Do the Commission’s objections concern the inclusion in the contract of a concession for
commercial gravel quarrying by businesses which have already previously been permitted to dig deep
gravel pits which have filled with stagnant water along the river banks in the same area, destroying the
landscape, or is the Commission’s concern rather that major public works projects should not be carried
out under public-private partnerships?

4. Will
Government or compel
operating in this area?

the approach advocated by the Commission lead to higher costs for

the Netherlands
it to use a developer of gravel deposits other than the businesses currently

5. Who will bear the cost of any large-scale damage caused by flooding to homes, businesses, public
land and farmland while the work is delayed due to the Commission’s intervention?

6. What will the Commission do to ensure that the work can be carried out quickly, at the lowest
possible cost and in a way which is appropriate to the area?

Source: 8 o’clock TV news, Nederland 1, 26 November 2003.

C 78 E/620

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

1.
The Commission is aware of the Grensmaas project that has as objectives ecological development,
gravel extraction and flood control. The Commission is equally aware of the fact that this project foresees,
inter alia, dredging works to be carried out in the Maas River.

2.
On the basis of a large number of complaints, the Commission has opened an infringement
procedure with regard to the Grensmaas project and has sent a letter of formal notice to the Dutch
government on 2 May 2003. In this letter of formal notice, the Commission explains that it considers that
the relationship between the Dutch authorities and those who are going to execute works in the
framework of the Grensmaas project gives rise to a public works contract in the meaning of the applicable
Union public procurement directives: such a contract should consequently be awarded in conformity with
Union legislation. The Commission does not dispose of any data according to which one can conclude that
the Grensmaas project has been delayed because of the ongoing infringement procedure. On the basis of
the information available, it rather appears that this project is scheduled to be completed by 2022 and that
the competent authorities do not foresee its execution to start before 2005. A tendering procedure as
foreseen by European public procurement legislation usually takes no more than six months.

3.
As said in point 2, the Commission’s concerns relate to the modalities of awarding the works at
stake. In the above-mentioned letter of formal notice, the Commission considers that the Grensmaas
project entails a public works contract which should be awarded in conformity with European public
procurement directives. Furthermore, the Commission underlines that, even if the contract were to be
considered as a concession, it should be awarded to the private partner in accordance with European law,
i.e.
in full compliance with the Treaty principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equality of
treatment which impose on any awarding body the duty to carry out tendering procedures in a transparent
manner, by ensuring adequate publicity thereof.

4.
The Commission does not dispose of any specific elements allowing it to respond to this question.
However, the aim of tendering procedures is to guarantee that public contracts are awarded to the tenderer
submitting the best bid, i.e. to ensure better (cid:1) and not worse (cid:1) value for public money.

5.
The Commission refers to the response to point 2. The Commission equally underlines that, even if a
delay would occur because of the ongoing infringement procedure, such delays are not attributable to the
Commission. Article 226 of the EC Treaty foresees such procedures in the case where a Member State has
failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, this Member State consequently bearing the responsibility
for the consequences of this failure.

6.
Since the dispatch of the letter of formal notice, the Commission has already met the Dutch
authorities twice with a view to finding a solution compatible with public procurement law and taking due
account of the importance of the project. Further contacts are due to take place in the near future.

(2004/C 78 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3648/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Desire of international rail

freight operators to replace national rail safety systems with the

European standard ECTS

1.
Can the Commission confirm that, in the context of its efforts to encourage a growth in the number
of international rail freight operators, it assumes that the new rail safety system ECTS is in general use at
least on sections of track which cross national borders and in the international corridors which EU
Member States are to make available for such transport first?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the statement by the director of the private rail company
Shortlines, quoted in the Dutch newspaper Rotterdams Dagblad on 21 November 2003, that he fears that
separate old safety systems such as ATB in the Netherlands, Memor in Belgium and Indusi in Germany will
be ‘strongly protected’
in each Member State, and he calls for ‘an emergency scenario in case the
equipment for reconciling the safety systems with one another is not ready and available in time’?