92000E2137

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the directive on public works contracts

In early March the Commission announced its intention to allow the Spanish authorities two months in which to make good the irregularities that had led to the opening of infringement proceedings on the grounds of incorrect transposal of Directive 93/37/EC(1) on public works contracts. The proceedings were opened in connection with the procedure used to select the undertaking responsible for building a new prison in Segovia.

However, this move in fact calls into question the system used in Spain for the award of contracts to businesses which receive public funding a system which is used by many of the governments of the autonomous communities.

Given that the deadline set for the Spanish authorities has now expired and that no trace of any proceedings is to be found in the list of Spanish cases pending before the Court of Justice (as at 18 May 2000), can the Commission state whether it has actually referred the case to the Court and, if it has, what stage has been reached in the proceedings?

Furthermore, have the Spanish authorities submitted any further arguments, and, if so, what are those arguments?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission decided on 22 December 1999 to refer the matter concerning Spain to the Court of Justice, as part of infringement proceedings in connection with a call for tenders announced by the Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Penitenciarios (Siepsa) to carry out works at the experimental training prison in Segovia.

The call for tenders, which was published in the national press but not in the Official Journal, was launched in violation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. The Spanish authorities dispute

the application of this directive to Siepsa on the grounds that it is a public commercial company governed by private law. The fact remains that Siepsa is a contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive, inasmuch as it fulfils the conditions of Article 1 thereof, in particular the condition that it has been established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.

The Commission took the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice after Spain had replied on 22 November 1999 to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 25 August 1999, since the arguments put forward in the reply did not justify a change of opinion on the part of the Commission.

The application was recently submitted to the Court of Justice.