WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lack of transparency in respect of projects funded by the EU.
C 280 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (7 March 2000) The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has received nearly 100 comments on 1. the green paper (1). Replies emanate from national and European consumer organisations, sectors of industry concerned (in particular pharmaceuticals, cars, insurance, chemicals, agricultural products, electrical equipment), public administrations of Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Austria, Portugal, Finland, United Kingdom) and third countries (Iceland, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland) and bodies specialising in product liability (e. g. Pan-European organisation of personal injury lawyers, United States Defense research institute, Special committee on European product liability law). The Commission published the comments on the Internet (http://europa. eu. int/internal_market/en/goods/ liability/replies. htm). At this stage, it is premature to judge the substance of the replies. 2. No reaction has so far been received from any Greek consumer organisation. (1) COM(99) 396 final. (2000/C 280 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Lack of transparency in respect of projects funded by the EU (24 January 2000) Article 61 of the contract for the construction of the Attica highway (Elefsina Avenue ü Stavros ü Spata Airport) contains the term áconfidentialityí and stresses that áthe contracting parties specifically agree and accept that all information, correspondence, documents, plans, are confidential and shall not be given to any third party, or be reproduced in any manner or be published in any formí and that áthe obligation of confidentiality shall obtain for the entire duration of the contract and shall continue for a period of three years following the expiry thereofí. Given that the requirement that public works and supplies contracts cofunded by the European Union should be fully transparent applies generally and also that comparable terms may exist in other contracts or may constitute a precedent for future practice, will the Commission say: 1. How will it ensure the transparency of funding and the proper implementation of projects which are cofunded? 2. Does the above-mentioned áconfidentialityí clause also apply to the Commission? 3. Will Article 61 of Law 2445/96 not make it difficult to trace the causes of the recent collapse of the bridge on the Attica highway? 4. What measures does it intend to take to remove the unacceptable wording of Article 61 which refers to áconfidentialityí and the ánon-publicationí of information? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (9 March 2000) On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the confidentiality clause in the text quoted by the Honourable Member refers to relations between the parties to the concession contract, i. e. the State and the enterprises to whom the contract in question has been awarded. This provision in no way affects 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/175 the áright of scrutinyí which the Commission, and the competent public authorities in general, possess concerning the execution of projects financed by Commission funds, which is governed by a set of legal provisions. In addition other provisions, notably the directives coordinating Community tendering procedures for public procurement markets with the corresponding national provisions, guarantee the required transpar- ency of the phases prior to a project being awarded. Clauses of this type are often included in contracts governing relations between the parties, with the principal aim of protecting the interested partiesí intellectual or industrial property rights, trade secrets, and the secrecy of the negotiations. The Commission stresses that such clauses have never prevented the Commission, or other competent bodies, from exercising their prerogative to monitor that projects are properly executed. As regards the specific case of the accident that occurred on the building site of a bridge on the Attica highway, the Greek authorities have set up an Inquiry Committee to establish the causes of this accident. On the basis of the Inquiry Committeeís conclusions, the Commission will take all necessary measures, as per Articles 38 and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 280 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 January 2000) Subject: Hawsbill sea turtle The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been on Appendix I of CITES since 1975. Cuban and Japanese reservations allowed Cuba to export thousands of hawksbill shells to Japan between 1975 and 1992, when Japan withdrew its reservation. Since 1992, the international trade in hawksbill shells has been banned. In 1997, Cuba proposed to transfer the Cuban populationí of hawksbills to CITES Appendix II, to export up to 500 shells to Japan each year, and to export over 5 000 kg of government shell stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting (April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities of European Parties to assess their hawksbill management programme. The UK, the Netherlands and Spain visited Cuba and may recommend that European Parties support Cubaís proposal. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that the Cuban proposal does not meet the 1. criteria established at the ninth Conference of the Parties for down-listing to Appendix II? 2. Given concerns that the reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products will fuel demand for shell around the world and cause increased poaching and illegal trade, should the Commission encourage trade in such a critically endangered species? 3. Given that experts have determined that there are no more than 5 000 nesting female hawksbills annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that annual removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species? 4. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that sea turtles caught in Cuban waters are shared by other countries in the Caribbean, meaning the killing and export of shells will affect the population of other countries?