(2004/C 78 E/0698)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP): ‘An Integrated Intervention for the Rehabilitation of Düzce’ — Turkey

The European Commission's Europe-Aid Cooperation Office has co-financed, under the MERP, budget line B7-411, the project mentioned in the reference — Contract identification number: PIU-ID-MERP-2002-0004 — Contracting Authority: Prime Ministry of Turkey, Project Implementation Unit (PIU) — Duration: 1.12.2002 to 30.11.2004. Within the project, procurements subject to tenders, referring to supplies, services and works, total a value of EUR 1130 000.

The forecasts were submitted on 22 January 2003 and although they are supposed to be examined and approved within 4 weeks, the first remarks by the PIU arrived only on 13 March 2003. Immediately afterwards, tender dossiers (7 out of 10 in the initial stage) were submitted, at different stages reacting to additional remarks received, between 19 March and 27 June 2003.

On 1 July the project leader, the PIU representatives and the Tender and Procurement Advisor hired by the European Commission met in Düzce to discuss specific remarks expressed. On that occasion it was announced that in the meantime the template documents used by Europe-Aid for procurement had changed, and all the tender dossiers had to be revised in order to meet the new requirements. New tender dossiers were submitted on 8 July 2003.

No answer on them has been received until today, although the stagnation regarding official provision of VAT exemption by the Turkish Treasury was finally overcome during November. The delays by the European Commission services supervising the tender procurement procedures are threatening the very implementation of the project.

What urgent action will the Commission take to remove existing obstacles and allow the successful continuation of the MERP Düzce project?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Whereas the details elaborated in the question are broadly correct, it should be noted that the MERP is not implemented by the Commission but by the Turkish government (decentralised management). As set out in the first paragraph of the question, the contracting authority is the Prime Ministry of Turkey Project Implementation Unit (PIU). The procurement advisor referred to was therefore not hired by the Commission and indeed has no contractual relationship with the Commission but only with the Turkish contracting authority.

As with all activities implemented through decentralised management, the Commission is only concerned when the contracting authority incurs any delay. In such a case the Commission may bring pressure to bear on the contracting authority to improve its performance, and may ultimately refuse to extend the budgetary commitment to the project if the contracting authority fails to implement it within the terms of the Financing Agreement signed between the Commission and the beneficiary government.

In the case of the MERP, it is the understanding of the Commission that the initial problems have now largely been overcome and agreement has broadly been reached between the Project Implementation Unit and the Prefecture of Grevana, and that the tender dossiers should soon be launched. The Commission has also indicated to the Prefecture of Grevana that if difficulties occur in their relationship with the PIU, the Commission is prepared to intervene in order to facilitate dialogue between the stakeholders. To this effect, the Commission has formally requested the PIU to establish monthly meetings of all project partners.