WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4046/97 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Breach of the rules on European public contracts
C 187/114 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 6. 98 (98/C 187/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/97 by Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998) Subject: Postponement of the ban on drift nets For what reasons has the Commission postponed submission of a new proposal to ban drift nets or gill nets for catching tuna? Why has Commissioner Bonino gone back on her promise to submit a proposal before the end of 1997? Is the Commission aware that its 1994 proposal is being stonewalled by the Commission? Why has the Commission accepted and concurred with the Council’s opposition? Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1998) The Commission has undertaken to find the best way of unblocking the driftnet issue in the Council, together with the Presidency of the Council and the Member States concerned. The proposal has not been blocked in the Council by the Commission › which has indicated its wish to find a solution on several occasions › but because a qualified majority has not so far emerged. The UK Presidency has said that it will submit a compromise proposal to the Council and the Commission hopes that a fair and lasting solution can be found on this basis. It will lend the Presidency all its support in this regard. (98/C 187/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4046/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998) Subject: Breach of the rules on European public contracts In the context of the procedure for the award of public contracts under the Lome· Convention, the Italian company ITAMSIDER, which had been awarded a contract in Mauritania, duly supplied certain materials to that country. However, Mauritania, despite having received the material according to due form, has refused to ask the Commission to make the corresponding payment, adducing unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of technical unsuitability. This refusal was in reality motivated by the fact that ITAMSIDER refused, as a matter of principle, to pay the bribe which was asked of it as a condition for supplying the Commission with the documents required for the funds concerned to be released. The local representative of the Commission held an expert hearing › of a summary nature and not allowing for representation of both sides › which was subsequently declared to have been irregular by the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg (judgment of 25 June 1997, first section, T-7/96). The Court of First Instance did not, however, take into consideration the recording of a telephone conversation which established beyond all doubt that the representatives of the Mauritanian company had asked for a bribe. It should be clear from the above that the Italian company was obliged to react to behaviour of an unethical nature. There appears, however, to be no possibility of taking out legal proceedings in Mauritania, since such attitudes would seem to be a matter of áusual practiceí in that country. The circumstance that such behaviour can go unpunished can only be considered detrimental to the correct functioning of the Community institutions. In view of the above, can the Commission state: 1. what means of redress are available in such cases, given that the procedures instituted by DG XX to bolster action against fraud and to protect the Communityís financial interests seem to be completely ineffective in the face of behaviour such as that described; what its position is on this matter as a whole, and what measures it intends to take to offer more secure 2. guarantees to Community enterprises?