WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3886/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Council. Misuse of EU funds in Russia
22. 6. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 196/29 Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (9 February 1998) The Commission considers that when the proposed directive enters into force manufacturers should benefit from economies in the costs connected with obtaining the approval of transportable pressure equipment. Indeed, the manufacturers of this equipment will no longer have to obtain approval in all the Member States, since approval and marking in only one Member State will be sufficient to allow the marketing of equipment and use in all the Member States. With regard to the effects of these savings on the price of this equipment, while no formal guarantee can be given that the savings will be passed on, the Commission is convinced that market forces will have this effect. (98/C 196/41) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3886/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (5 December 1997) Subject: Misuse of EU funds in Russia 1. The Russian newspaper Rossiyskie Vesti published three articles on 11 April 1995, 29 June 1995 and 18 October 1997 under the headlines: Legacy from a Dutch grandmotherí, Mousetrap baited with Dutch cheeseí and Dutch response to Rossiyskie Vesti investigationí, all relating to the misuse of EU subsidies. Has the Council instructed the Commission to investigate the misuse of EU funds referred to in these newspaper articles? If so, what are the Councilís conclusions? If not, why has such an inquiry not yet been carried out and is the Council still prepared to instruct the Commission as a matter of urgency to make inquiries regarding the alleged misuse of EU subsidies in connection with the building of the distribution centre in Moscow? 2. Is it true, as stated in the Rossiyskie Vesti article of 29 June 1995 entitled Mousetrap baited with Dutch cheeseí, that áthe lionís share of the money intended for the Russian development project of building a distribution centre near Moscow in cooperation with the Russian semi-state-controlled company TONAR has been paid to the Dutch multinational Koninklijke Ahold N. V. for consultancy work and under the guise of assistance to Russia, experts and officials have enriched themselves with EU fundsí? 3. In the articles Rossiyskie Vesti claims that money made available to Russia by the EU for Technical Assistance has not been efficiently used. Can the Council say how the EU funds have been used in building the projected distribution centre and why the building of the distribution centre has not been completed? 4. Does the Council not take the view that the Dutch courts have now established de facto that the multinational Koninklijke Ahold N. V. , the Dutch partner in the project, acted unlawfully vis-a‘-vis its Russian partner TONAR and that the funds made available for this project by the European Union should be reclaimed? 5. The Russian newspaper Rossiyskie Vesti concluded on 18 October 1997 that áthe Government of the Netherlands is actually only helping its own nationalsí. Does the Council realize that behaviour such as this by the Government of the Netherlands runs counter to the intentions of the European Union in granting subsidies to Russia, namely the promotion of economic activity in Russia and thus of stability and security in Europe as a whole? (98/C 196/42) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4158/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (22 January 1998) Subject: Failure of a TACIS project in Russia 1. The Netherlands and its consultants Koninklijke Ahold NV were taken to court on 4 December 1997 by the Russian partner Tonar for payment of Fl. 9 million damages for the unlawful termination of a TACIS aid programme (TAGOS) initiated by the EU. According to the ruling of the Amsterdam Court the termination of the