WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme.
Date: 2004-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, contract, decision-making, information, research project

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/191

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased with the Honourable Member’s comment that the harmonisation measures
taken in the area of consumer credit are to be welcomed. These measures are part of the Commission’s
policy in the area of consumer protection and are in line with its strategy for 2002-2006 (1).

With regard to the first point made by the Honourable Member, indebtedness is indeed a concern within
the EU, and the Commission shares this concern. Although the proposal for a Directive is not primarily
designed to tackle indebtedness, it contains provisions which may help to do so. It is intended to set high
standards for consumer information before, during and after the conclusion of credit agreements, which
will help the consumer to avoid indebtedness, and to lay down rules on awarding loans (for example, the
obligation for the lender to make sure that the customer is solvent).

As for the Honourable Member’s comment on the procedure in Parliament, the Commission is pleased that
Parliament has confirmed in plenary that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market should
proceed with a review of the proposal and deliver an opinion on it.

The Commission is pleased with the in-depth discussions under way in Parliament and is awaiting the
debate and the vote in plenary, currently scheduled for the second part-session in March 2004.
The Commission intends to submit an amended proposal as soon as Parliament has adopted its
amendments at first reading.

(1) COM(2002) 208 final (cid:1) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (cid:1) Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006.

(2004/C 84 E/0232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/04

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

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme

The first round of contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6) is now
fully under way. The negotiations are proving very difficult and the initial reports from project
coordinators are unusually critical. During the negotiations, scientific officers are reportedly using rules
different to those announced at the information meetings held when FP 6 was launched. The result is
growing uncertainty regarding the purpose of
the new instruments, uncertainty which was already
considerable at the start. Many groups are now giving serious thought to ignoring FP 6 and concentrating
exclusively on national programmes.

Is the Commission aware of the problems emerging in connection with the first round of contract

1.
negotiations under FP 6?

Can the Commission state what rules governing the conclusion of contracts are now being employed

2.
and why these rules differ from those originally announced?

Are the rules now being employed consistent with those agreed between the Council and Parliament

3.
and laid down in FP 6?

4. What steps has the Commission taken, or what steps does it plan to take, to deal with the problems
outlined above?

C 84 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

It is true that in some cases there have been some misunderstandings about the nature and objectives
1.
of the new instruments established under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6). These have
meant that certain expectations on the part of the participants in these projects (correct or incorrect) may
not have been met in full when negotiating their projects with the Commission. For example, the
Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Community financial contribution is provided in
accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Financial Regulation (1) and that the legal and
financial interests of the Community are ensured when entering into contracts with third parties.

However, it should also be said that guidance and information on the new instruments, as well as on
the contractual aspects relating to the negotiation of projects have been provided both to potential
contractors and to the Commission. Much of this information can be found either on the Cordis web
site or on the model contract web site at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-
contract/index_en.html)

2.
The Rules for Participation, the model contract that is based on those Rules and the provisions of the
Financial Regulation are all applied when negotiating contracts with successful consortia. These principles
should not differ from any ‘originally announced’.

3.

Yes.

4.
As mentioned in point 1 much information has been produced by the Commission to help and
explain both to potential contractors and within the Commission the legal, financial and contractual
aspects applicable to FP6. If there are specific cases of discrepancy between the Rules established and the
practices carried out, these should be brought to the attention of those responsible within the Commission.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies

The engine manufacturers Wärtsilä are halting production of diesel engines at Turku in Finland and
moving their operation to Trieste in Italy. In his reply to a parliamentary question from Theodorus
Bouwman, MEP (P-3451/01) (1), Commissioner Monti said the Commission was looking into the possible
misuse of state subsidies in connection with Wärtsilä’s closure of its Zwolle plant. Now that we have a
further instance of Wärtsilä closing a viable production unit in one country and moving its operations to
another, suspicions are reinforced that the Italian state is supporting a former state-owned production unit
on improper grounds. Can the (Italian) Commissioner responsible for competition tell me whether the
investigations referred to in his answer to Mr Bouwman’s question have been completed, what was the
result of these investigations as regards possible distortions of competition, and whether Wärtsilä has
received, or is receiving, unjustified aid from the Italian State?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 180.