91997E3748

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Purchase of uniforms for the staff of ATAC (the local bus and tram company)/ CO.TRA.L. (the Lazio public transport consortium)

A statement was recently submitted to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Rome concerning alleged irregularities in the supply of uniforms for the staff of ATAC/CO.TRA.L. According to this statement, submitted by the regional secretariat of the National Confederation of Transport Workers, not only did the uniforms supplied under a contract awarded by ATAC as a result of a private bidding procedure to a Rome firm not correspond to the samples as regards the quality of the material, but the attitude shown by ATAC/CO.TRA.L. was contrary to that indicated in the letter awarding the contract, which stated that if the goods supplied did not match the specifications the whole transaction would be called into question. Instead, the company solved the problem on 13 June 1997 by merely obtaining a very small discount on the goods supplied, without refusing the consignment as laid down. This situation raises doubts about the correctness of the prices indicated in the letter awarding the contact, in view of the large number of items of clothing needed by the company and the special characteristics of the materials required for the uniforms.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether the call to tender concerned complied fully with European legislation on public supply contracts, in particular Directive 93/38/EEC ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.)) coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the transport sector;

2. what its opinion of the above-mentioned affair is?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

1. The particulars given by the Honourable Member, namely that, when supplied, the uniforms did not correspond to the samples on the basis of which the contract had been awarded and that the awarding authority did not refuse the entire consignment but simply asked for a discount, contrary to what was stipulated in the letter awarding the contract, do not constitute breaches of Community public procurement legislation.

They relate to the implementation phase of the contract, viz. the obligations to be met by the parties under the contractual relastionship. They must therefore be assessed in the light of national legislation and not in the light of the Community public procurement directives that coordinate contract award procedures but leave implementation to the national legislature.

Nor is the correctness of prices covered by the directives. Consequently, it can at most be assessed by national courts in the light of the relevant provisions of national law.

2. For the reasons given above, the Commission is unable to comment on the particulars of this case.