Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-30-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030630.10.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor a second time on this important matter. I would like to reply to some of the points raised. I would like to elucidate what I said earlier so that no misunderstandings remain between what this Parliament would like to see the Commission do, and what the Commission itself intends to do.
On the contrary, through the combination of recitals and Articles, the common positions consolidate and clarify the possibilities offered by current law. They do not add anything to or subtract anything from current possibilities, but they have the merit of setting these out explicitly instead of having to rely on interpretations of jurisprudence with all the ensuing possibilities for different use and consequent legal uncertainty on this crucial issue. Moreover, they clarify that under the same conditions as set out by the Court of Justice, the use of social award criteria is also legitimate.
I should like to end by expressing the hope that in its vote Parliament will support the common position so that we can get these directives onto the statute book as quickly as possible.
Firstly I refer to what Mr MacCormick said right at the beginning of this debate, which was also repeated by other speakers. Mr MacCormick referred to the current state of jurisprudence. In accordance with that jurisprudence, the common position already clarifies that environmental characteristics and social clauses may be used as award criteria and that it is not necessary that each and every award criterion taken individually can be shown to provide an economic benefit for the contracting authorities or entities. It is sufficient that taken as a whole the award criteria can carry out their proper function, which is to allow an objective evaluation and comparison of the intrinsic qualities of the products or services offered and by the award of the contract to the most economically advantageous tender. Here I would also refer to Mr Harbour's remarks, with which the Commission agrees.
Secondly, Mrs Thors and Mr Junker referred to production methods. I should like to reply that regarding the amendments which aimed to insert explicit references to production methods, the Commission is of the opinion that it is superfluous to do so since production methods are a part of the environmental characteristics which, as I have just said, are already allowed for. Furthermore, they are explicitly referred to as examples of legitimate technical specifications.
I then come to my third point, which was also raised by Mr MacCormick. In Article 53 the words 'for the contracting authority' are explained by recital 44 as meaning that the best tender will be assessed according to what the contracting authority will have defined as its requirements. Recital 44 further clarifies that this encompasses requirements addressed to satisfy the needs of the public concern in the case of the ruling about the need to limit air pollution for the population of the City of Helsinki.
Mr Koukiadis gave us a further example of valid award criteria under Article 53 – the needs of handicapped people, which should be taken into account. In the case of transport services – for example better access to buses for handicapped people – would certainly be a valid criterion. There is no doubt about that.
My fifth point refers to the phrase 'economically most advantageous', which Mr Herman Schmid and a number of speakers mentioned. In reply to those comments, the most economically advantageous tender would be the result of a combination of economic but also qualitative criteria, and the latter would serve not necessarily to calculate the costs for the contracting authority, but would certainly help that contracting authority to make up its mind.
My penultimate point refers to labels, which Mr Jonckheer mentioned. As the common positions clearly show, the Commission is in favour of clarifying the role of eco-labels in public procurement and the possibility of referring to them when defining technical specifications. It should be kept in mind, however, that unlike 'ordinary' European standards, European eco-labels do not replace other competing eco-labels such as pluri-national ones. The Commission's proposals on eco-labels had foreseen such replacement, but this was not accepted during the legislative process.
The current situation is, therefore, that different eco-labels may exist side by side even if they cover the same aspects. It would therefore not be appropriate – indeed, it would be contrary to established policy in the environmental field – to introduce a preference for European eco-labels over other eco-labels. The Commission is conscious that references to the performances underlying eco-labels rather than to simply require the labels themselves may be more complicated for purchasers. This task has been rendered easier through a database created by the Commission which lists the different performances defined in eco-labels that can be used in connection with award procedures. I can add that a practical guide to green procurement will be published later this year.
Finally, I should like to deal with the questions put by Mrs Thorning-Schmidt and Mr Hughes as to why the Commission is going back on current law as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Helsinki buses case. My answer quite simply is as follows: it is simply not true that the common positions are more restrictive than the interpretation of current law given by the Court of Justice in the Helsinki buses case."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples