WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4159/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Commission. Failure of a TACIS project in Russia
17. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 223/65 The action put into motion by the Commission on learning the facts described by the Honourable Members included writing to the Spanish authorities to request information. In reply, the Spanish authorities pointed out that the project in question had been the subject of an environmental impact assessment during which the opinion of the general public was sought. Following this consultation procedure, the projectís promoter was asked to carry out additional studies relating to hydrogeology, the use of plant protection products and the effects on the fauna. According to the Spanish authorities, these studies and other reports in the hands of the Autonomous Community show that the project in question will not have any negative impact on the birds for which the area was designated as an SPA. On the basis of this information, the Commission has not found any breach of obligations arising from the abovementioned Directive 92/43/EEC. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (98/C 223/78) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4159/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (21 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 aid programme was unlawful. Both the Netherlands state and Koninklijke Ahold N. V. refuse to settle the damages in a correct manner and are forcing the Russian partner into a costly, unnecessary and lengthy procedure. Is the Commission aware that the case, which is expected to last several years › whether or not there is a positive or negative result for the plaintiffs › will have an adverse effect on future subsidy programmes and the mutual trust and stability in relations with Eastern Europe. Does the Commission not consider that there is gross negligence on the part of Koninklijke Ahold N. V. , when, despite the clear indication by the Amsterdam court that Koninklijke Ahold N. V. is liable for damages, that company and the Netherlands state refuse to hold any proper discussions with the injured party, in this case the Russian partner Tonar? 2. The study commissioned by the EU and carried out by Koninklijke Ahold N. V. , shows that the establishment of a food wholesale business, in this case a distribution centre, is the key priority. Koninklijke Ahold made this conclusion as a priority in its August 1992 report. Does the Commission not find it strange that the country providing assistance in the framework of the TACIS aid programme, in this case the Netherlands, refuses to meet the key wishes of the country receiving assistance, in this case Russia, and also that the agreements made between the Netherlands and Russia have consistently not been fulfilled, even after it was shown that the Russians had fully satisfied all conditions set by the European Union and the Netherlands Ministry for Economic Affairs? Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 February 1998) The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Memberís Written Question E-3887/97 (1). The project mentioned by the Honourable Member, which is the subject of litigation between Russian and Dutch parties, was funded by the Dutch government. It did not involve any Tacis funding. Therefore, the Commission cannot intervene in this matter. The Commission strives to ensure synergy between Tacis and the technical assistance programmes of the Member States. This does, however, not mean that the Commission can influence the implementation, or set conditions for those programmes of the Member States, as is implied in the question. (1) See page 30