WRITTEN QUESTION P-2255/99 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/157 1. What is the Commissionís opinion regarding the conditions needing to be met in order to be part of the European area of justice? Does it not consider that inclusion in this area is incompatible with the continued existence of penal 2. codes seen as áinadequateí by those who operate them? 3. Does it not share the view of many Italian citizens that the Union should intervene and árecommendí reforms of the legal system to the Italian Government to prevent the serious anomalies and injustices with which the system is riddled? Does it not believe that, unless serious reforms are undertaken, the inclusion of Italy in the European 4. area of justice could generate imbalance and instability? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1999) The Commission sees its task as putting information at citizensí disposal by contributing to the launch of an information campaign and to the publication of appropriate áuser guidesí on judicial co-operation within the Union and on the legal systems of the Member States, as foreseen by conclusion No 29 of the Tampere European Council. Citizens should thus be able to know their rights, which is a prerequisite for them to exercise them. The Commission does not think that this goal would be furthered by trying to include in the material chapters any alleged miscarriages of justice in one or several Member States. The European area of justice is one of the objectives of the Union, as foreseen by Article 29 (ex-Article K1) of the Treaty on European Union. Therefore, it is for the Union to take measures at its level. It is not for the Union to interfere with the administration of justice in the Member States, as long as it is carried out in line with the legal requirements imposed by the treaties and the legal instruments adopted in accordance therewith. There are no requirements on Member Statesí penal codes or penal procedure codes as such. Only the parts dealing with subjects covered by above-mentioned legal instruments need to be aligned. All the Member States are bound by the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which in its Article 6 covers the right to a fair trial. Article 7 (ex-Article F1) of the Treaty on European Union foresees that the Council may take sanctions against a Member State for breaches of fundamental rights, including those foreseen in the above-mentioned convention. This, however, is only foreseen for áserious and persistent breachesí. (2000/C 203 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2255/99 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels In its reply to Written Question P-1486/99 (1), the Commission stated that the complainant áby defending his project [ ] brought about a loss of anonymity for all the projectsí. What stage of the competition procedure was the Commission referring to? Was it referring to the oral presentation of projects which took place on 22 April 1998 on the basis of an invitation from the adjudication panel at the second stage of the proceedings? If so, what is meant by ábringing about a loss of anonymityí? According to the Commissionís reply, the Belgian authorities, when questioned, acknowledged that certain provisions on the appointment of deputies for panel members had not been respected. In this connection: What was the status of Minister Hasquin as an honorary member of the panel and signatory to its report? On what legal basis was Minister Hasquin allowed to play a decisive role in the panel, given that his participation in the decision was not clearly provided for at the beginning of the competition? C 203 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 How can the Belgian authorities maintain that áthere was nothing to suggest that the members of the panel had been biased in favour of one of the candidatesí, and thereby suggest that non-compliance with certain provisions governing the work of the panel can be justified? Can it explain why, at the second stage of the proceedings, two members of the panel did not sign the final decision of 22 April 1998 and yet that the two signatures subsquently reappeared in the same decision? Can it explain how it was possible for a member of the panel, Mr Henri Montois, to be associated with the winning firm Art & Buildí? Does the Commission agree that Article 12 of Directive 92/50/EEC (2) was not respected in terms of the criteria for assessing projects set out in the rules governing the work of the panel when the first-stage decision was announced, insofar as there was no clear explanation of how points were awarded to each project (the remarks made about the project with the highest score were more negative than those for others!)? Does the Commission not consider that it shares responsibility for management of the competition, given that it was represented by a full member of the panel? In its reply to the same written question, the Commission states that ámeasures would have been taken to involve the various parties involvedí whenever the projects were devised. Will the Commission specify which parties? Was the local population consulted at that stage? (1) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 91. (2) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (7 December 1999) Following the answer given to the honourable Memberís Written Question P-1486/99 (1), the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Belgium for a breach of Article 13 (concerning contests) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (2). A letter of formal notice was sent on 4 November 1999. Inasmuch as the honourable Memberís question contains new facts, further consideration seems to be required. The Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. As already indicated in the answer to Written Question P-1486/99, the only awarding authority in the case in question is the Brussels-Capital Region. The Communityís involvement is restricted to participation in from the Council, one from the the funding. The selection panel apparently included one official Parliament and one from the Commission. This participation in the panel does not, however, imply any responsibility on the part of the institutions with regard to the award of the contract. (1) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 91. (2) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992. (2000/C 203 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Horse wrestlingí Would the Commission indicate whether it finds it acceptable that, in Spain, the spectator ásportí of áhorse wrestlingí is allowed to continue? Constituents of mine have been shocked to see images on British television of wild horses being wrestled to the ground in the name of entertainment as they are ábroken iní. Is there any action the Commission is able to take to prevent such cruelty taking place in the Member States?