WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/03 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE)and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP): An Integrated Intervention for the Rehabilitation of Düzce — Turkey.
Date: 2003-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, award of contract, earthquake, economic reconstruction, invitation to tender, project evaluation

C 78 E/656

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

According to Article 9(2)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive the place of supply of transport services is the
place where the transport takes place, having regards of the distances covered. Therefore, in the example
quoted,
it is up to each individual Member State to determine how VAT is to be levied and which
obligations each subcontractor has to fulfil on its territory.

The Commission is aware of the problems which can occur in the field of taxation of passenger transport
services and in the framework of its review and update of VAT Strategy priorities (1), it has undertaken to
look at the simplification of the obligations for traders in the field of VAT in the third quarter of 2004 as
well as at the issue of the place of taxation of passenger transport services in 2005.

(1) COM(2003) 614 final of 20.10.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0698)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE)
and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP):

‘An Integrated Intervention for the

Rehabilitation of Düzce’ (cid:1) Turkey

The European Commission’s Europe-Aid Cooperation Office has co-financed, under the MERP, budget line
B7-411, the project mentioned in the reference (cid:1) Contract identification number: PIU-ID-MERP-2002-
0004 (cid:1) Contracting Authority: Prime Ministry of Turkey, Project Implementation Unit (PIU) (cid:1) Duration:
1.12.2002 to 30.11.2004. Within the project, procurements subject to tenders, referring to supplies,
services and works, total a value of EUR 1 130 000.

The forecasts were submitted on 22 January 2003 and although they are supposed to be examined and
approved within 4 weeks, the first remarks by the PIU arrived only on 13 March 2003. Immediately
afterwards, tender dossiers (7 out of 10 in the initial stage) were submitted, at different stages reacting to
additional remarks received, between 19 March and 27 June 2003.

On 1 July the project leader, the PIU representatives and the Tender and Procurement Advisor hired by the
European Commission met in Düzce to discuss specific remarks expressed. On that occasion it was
announced that in the meantime the template documents used by Europe-Aid for procurement had
changed, and all the tender dossiers had to be revised in order to meet the new requirements. New tender
dossiers were submitted on 8 July 2003.

No answer on them has been received until today, although the stagnation regarding official provision of
VAT exemption by the Turkish Treasury was finally overcome during November. The delays by the
European Commission services supervising the tender procurement procedures are threatening the very
implementation of the project.

What urgent action will the Commission take to remove existing obstacles and allow the successful
continuation of the MERP Düzce project?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Whereas the details elaborated in the question are broadly correct, it should be noted that the MERP is not
implemented by the Commission but by the Turkish government (decentralised management). As set out
in the first paragraph of the question, the contracting authority is the Prime Ministry of Turkey Project
Implementation Unit
(PIU). The procurement advisor referred to was therefore not hired by the
Commission and indeed has no contractual relationship with the Commission but only with the Turkish
contracting authority.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/657

As with all activities implemented through decentralised management, the Commission is only concerned
when the contracting authority incurs any delay. In such a case the Commission may bring pressure to
bear on the contracting authority to improve its performance, and may ultimately refuse to extend the
budgetary commitment to the project if the contracting authority fails to implement it within the terms of
the Financing Agreement signed between the Commission and the beneficiary government.

In the case of the MERP, it is the understanding of the Commission that the initial problems have now
largely been overcome and agreement has broadly been reached between the Project Implementation Unit
and the Prefecture of Grevana, and that the tender dossiers should soon be launched. The Commission has
also indicated to the Prefecture of Grevana that if difficulties occur in their relationship with the PIU, the
Commission is prepared to intervene in order to facilitate dialogue between the stakeholders. To this effect,
the Commission has formally requested the PIU to establish monthly meetings of all project partners.

(2004/C 78 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3843/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI),
Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI)
and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Censorship practised at the request of the Russian Consulate in Milan by the city authorities in

connection with the Romano Cagnoni photography exhibition

On 4 December 2003 the Milan city authorities were due to stage an exhibition (which had been
scheduled since last April) of the work of the photographer Romano Cagnoni.

The photograph which appears on the invitation (and also on the posters, the banners, the public-
transport advertising and the catalogue cover) contains a foregrounded image of a smiling Chechen soldier.

After the first posters appeared on walls in Milan the Russian Consulate complained to the city authorities
that they constituted ‘a senseless provocation’ and with less than a week to go before the opening of the
exhibition the authorities decided not to display any more posters, banners or public-transport advertising
and to cover up the posters which were already on the streets. They have not yet decided whether to
censor the catalogue cover as well, although they cannot take any action in respect of the invitations,
which have already been sent out.

In order to justify the censorship practised by the Milan city councillor with responsibility for cultural
matters, Salvatore Carubba has told Romano Cagnoni that ‘it would not please the Bishop to see that
murderer’s ugly mug in piazza del Duomo [Cathedral Square] at Christmas time’.

Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above? What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis the Milan
city authorities in response to this serious act of censorship?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Freedom of opinion and expression is one of the Union’s fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights. However, the Commission cannot comment on the specific case referred to by the
Honourable Members, which is exclusively a matter for the Member State concerned.