WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Olaf's sphere of activity.
C 330 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Article 6(3) implies that an assessment is required in the case of a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a SPA. The authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications and in the absence of alternative solutions, the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out, the Member State has to comply with all the specific requirements that are mentioned in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Commission is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Community is fully complied with in this case. the environmental legislation of the (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2000/C 330 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Olafís sphere of activity At the last minute, Olaf, the Communityís anti-fraud agency, has objected to Articles 66 and 73 of Doc XXI/1402/97-rev. 8 and demanded that sensitive goods be excluded from the institute of the authorised consignor or recipient, otherwise the aim of combating fraud would be undermined. After this was announced, the European industrial confederations intervened and stated that the simplified procedure should be based on the reliability of the principal, contending that this was one of the main reasons for the reform. The customs authorities in most Member States are also opposed to the action taken by Olaf in this regard. This shows the power of the anti-fraud agency, which is going against the Commission and against most Member States. What action is the Commission taking in this connection to make sure that Olafís power lies in the executive rather than the legislative sphere? How will the Commission try to confine Olafís sphere of activity to executive areas only? Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (17 March 2000) First of all, the Commission would point out that it acts in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility. It would stress that the fight against fraud is one of its constant political concerns. On the matter of the reform of the Community transit procedure (1) (and of the common transit procedure, which is being conducted in parallel), some of the Commissionís proposals which are being discussed within the Transit Section of the Customs Code Committee were designed to exclude cigarettes and alcohol above 40o from some of the simplified procedures (authorised consignor and recipient). It will be recalled that some particularly serious cases of fraud involving these products prompted the creation of a committee of inquiry in Parliament in December 1995. The Commission does not wish to prejudge the outcome of the current discussions. 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/101 the instruments adopted in 1999 (2) confirm that As far as the European Anti-Fraud Officeís (OLAF) powers are concerned, the Commission would stress the Officeís mission is not merely one of that investigation and operational support. The Office also has a role to play in formulating policy for the fight against fraud, and in preparing Commission initiatives for legislative instruments and regulations in its fields of activity (including instruments which come under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union). The Office also represents the Commission in the forums concerned with the fight against fraud. (1) Draft Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993. (2) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular Article 2; OJ L 136, 31. 5. 1999. (2000/C 330 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Road tunnel at the port of Olbia, Sardinia (4 February 2000) In reply to my Written Question E-2039/99 (1) about the Olbia tunnel, the Commission stated that the Italian authorities must carry out a preliminary assessment to determine whether this project ü which falls within category 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (2) ü should be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. Construction work in the tunnel is already in progress. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this preliminary assessment is carried out as quickly as possible? Would it not agree that infringement proceedings should be brought against Italy for violation of the above directive, given that a preliminary assessment is obligatory for projects listed in the annexes to that directive, in respect of which the Member State has discretionary powers, as confirmed by the Court of Justice (3). As I also stressed in Written Question 2039/99, responsibility for constructing the tunnel was, in breach of the 1980 port master plan, assigned by ANAS (the Italian highways authority) to the Roman firm Tor di Valle without any call for bids. Does the Commission therefore not consider that the fact that the contract to build the tunnel was awarded without an open invitation to tender constitutes a breach of European public procurement legislation (4)? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1. 8. 2000, p. 73. (2) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (3) The Court of Justice judgment of 2 May 1996 in Case 133/94. (4) Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000) The Commission has opened a file on the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member and has requested detailed information. The situation will be assessed on the basis of the response of the Italian authorities. As for the possible action by the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community law, the Commission powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law relevant to the specific case