WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for Katerini General Hospital.
C 225 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 subject to prior authorisation. By way of derogation, hunters, for firearms classified in categories C and D of Annex I of the Directive, and marksmen, for categories B, C and D, may without prior authorisation be in possession of one or more firearms classified in these categories during a journey through two or more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a European firearms pass listing such firearm or firearms and provided that they are able to substantiate the reasons for their journey, in particular by producing an invitation. However, this derogation does not apply to journeys to a Member State which prohibits the acquisition and possession of the firearm in question or which, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, makes it subject to authorisation. The Commission has not been informed by the German authorities of the introduction of the document to which the honourable Member refers. On 16 December 1999, the Commission contacted the German authorities and asked them to explain the nature of the document and the reasons and grounds for introducing it in Germany. When the Commission receives a reply from the German authorities, it will ensure that the honourable Member is informed of the action it intends to take on the matter. the Commission wishes to stress that However, the European firearms pass is the only document recognised by all the Member States as authorisation for the temporary movement of firearms in journeys between two or more Member States of EU nationals, in particular hunters and marksmen. Furthermore, given the Commissionís obligation under Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, the question of the functioning of the European firearms pass will be duly taken into account in the report on the application of this Directive which the Commission will address to the Parliament and the Council in the course of 2000. (1) OJ L 256, 13. 9. 1991. (2000/C 225 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for Katerini General Hospital On 26 November 1996 the Greek Governmentís Public Corporation for the Construction of Medical Units (PCCMU) awarded the contract for building the Prefectural General Hospital of Katerini to a particular joint venture, in spite of its inexplicably low tender and various other irregularities in the way the contract awarding process had been carried out. Specifically, the PCCMU decided to award the contract without the approval of the Competition Committee, which had asked why the tender was so low but had never received an answer, and had therefore not given its approval. Long delays in carrying out the work were one of the consequences of the above, resulting in a penal clause amounting to 90 million drachmas being applied to the contracting joint venture. Most bizarrely, however, the contractor did not forfeit the job, as is usual in such circumstances, but was granted an extension of eight months by the PCCMU in which to complete it. Today, however, 33 months after the contract was awarded and just five months away from the deadline for completion, not even the frame is ready and barely 20 % of the total is estimated to have been finished. The Commissionís Directorate-General XV, in a warning letter sent on 5 May 1998 to the responsible Greek authorities, expressed reservations about the contract awarding process and fears that the project might not be continued. Could the Commission say what the precise reasons were that prompted it to send this letter, who it considers to blame for the whole situation and especially the delays, and whether it believes that there are good reasons for the sums allocated for the completion of the work to be definitively forfeited? 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/187 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (15 February 2000) The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has examined this case following a complaint which called into question the legality of the award procedure for this contract. On the basis of the information contained in the complaint, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of certain parts of the procedure in a letter sent to the Greek authorities, and has requested further information and comments from these authorities. Certain details which cast doubt on the legality of this contract have also appeared in the Greek press. Before concluding its examination, the Commission has, therefore, also attempted to determine the truth of these allegations. The examination of this dossier will be completed shortly. The fact that there have been delays in the construction of the building is certainly regrettable, but it is not up to the Commission to apportion responsibility. The Commission would also like to assure the Honourable Member that Community co-financing for carrying out this project will be re-examined once the Commission has concluded its final assessment of the aforementioned complaint. (2000/C 225 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/99 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies 1. Can the Commission provide details of all financial support received, firstly, by nuclear energy (including fusion) and, secondly, by renewable energies (solar and wind power) from the relevant budget titles of the general budget of the European Communities since the Communities were established? 2. If not, why not? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (1 March 2000) The Commission is sending the information requested direct Parliamentís Secretariat. to the Honourable Member and to (2000/C 225 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/99 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Indian leather industry subsidies Last year I tabled a question (E-3882/99) (1) to the Commission which elicited a response referring me to the Commissionís reply to another question of mine (P-3790/98) (2), which had nothing to do with the new question at all. I would therefore repeat my request: will the Commission send me the list of projects funded by the EU in India helping the Indian leather industry (leather, footwear and fine leather goods), stating the date of approval and the objectives? (1) OJ C 142, 21. 5. 1999, p. 155. (2) OJ C 142, 21. 5. 1999, p. 150