Activities of Peter SIMON related to 2009/2175(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION Opinion on New developments in public procurement
Amendments (12)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that although local and regional authorities are amongst Europe’s largest purchasers and therefore play an essential role in implementing public procurement rules, there is a general lack of legal expertise complexity of the rules on competition law and procurement law means that there is often a lack of expertise in the legal framework and its implementation, appropriate training and guidelines on procurement within sub- national authorities;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that it is not only costs and complexity which can be prohibitive, but also the time needed to complete the public procurement process, not land the threast because theof legal action in the form of lengthy appeal procedures arethat are often obstructed by various actors, and hence welcomes the fact that the recovery plan makes it possible to apply accelerated versions of the procedures outlined in the public procurement directives to major public projects specifically in 2009 and 2010; calls on the Member States to supportmake use of the procedure and assist local authorities in using these new procedures, in each case in compliance with the standard public procurement rules and regulations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of using, even beyond 2010, accelerated versions of procedures in connection with structural funds and an extension of the temporary increase in thresholds, with the specific aim of increasing investment;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores the fact that in some cases Structural Fund allocations for infrastructure projects undertaken in the context of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) and related contracts with private operators based on public procurement carried out at sub-national level have led to a loss of European Union subsidies previously available to fund infrastructure development; believes that it is vital to remove obstacles to and establish clear rules for PPPs if the European Union wants to have any chance of making the necessary investments in infrastructure and quality services; calls on the Commission to ensure that public procurement and Structural Fund implementation rules set a clearoherent framework for PPPs in order to create legal certainty for all stakeholders and reduce the pressure on public budgets, in the context of the principle of co-financing and in the aftermath of the global economic crisis;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores the fact that in some cases Structural Fund allocations for infrastructure projects undertaken in the context of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) and related contracts with private operators based on public procurement carried out at sub-national level have led to a loss of European Union subsidies previously available to fund infrastructure development; believes that it is vital to remove obstacles to and establish clear rules for PPPs if the European Union wants to have any chance of making the necessary investments in infrastructure and quality services; calls on the Commission to ensure that public procurement and Structural Fund implementation rules set a clear framework for PPPs in order to create legal certainty for all stakeholders and reduce the pressure on public budgets, in the context of the principle of co-financing and in the aftermath of the global economic crisis;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the right of local and regional authorities to decide democratically on the best means of delivering public services, including decisions to use companies they own or control without any private partner being involved; believes that even without compulsory tendering inter-communal or other forms of public-public cooperation for service delivery should be accepted as a legitimate way of delivering in-house services and that sub-national actors should be able to assign tasks relating to public service provision to companies they own or control, provided that those companies do not compete on external markets; proposes that the Commission should assess whether there is any remaining legal uncertainty regarding the concepts of ‘public authority’ and ‘in- house services’ in the light of various judgments1 of the Court of Justice and, if necessary, take steps to clarify them so that the principle of subsidiarity is observed;.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Points out that the Commission’s initiatives concerning public procurement need to be better coordinated in order to avoid jeopardising coherence with European directives on public procurement and causing legal problems for operators; calls in this regard for better coordination within the European Commission, including a single website with clear structures to promote legislative transparency in this field;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to clarify the corresponding public procurement rules and revise the legal framework in order not to jeopardise the powers and right of local authorities to decide how they want to develop theirdraw up, in close cooperation with the European Parliament, the Council and regional and local government, the corresponding public procurement rules with sufficient clarity to enable contracting authorities clearly to identify which public works contracts and concessions are subject to award and thus distinguish between these and urban development projects for which therritorye is no obligation to award contracts.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the difficulty in distinguishing public works contracts from public authorities’ town planning activities and endorses the concerns voiced by many local authorities in response to the interpretation of the rulings1 of the Court of Justice in the field of urban development; firmly believes that the operationally and legally strict application of public procurement rules might hinder urban development; calls on the Commission to clarify the corresponding public procurement rules and revise the legal framework in order not toso that land agreements can be facilitated between the public and private sector without the unnecessary requirement of having to award a tender and without jeopardiseing the powers and right of local authorities to decide how they want to develop their territory; awaits with great interest the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-451/08; endorses the view of the Advocate-General of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 November 2009 in Case C-451/08: 'These broad and ambitious aims must be borne in mind when interpreting the Directive but it should not be assumed that, by appealing to the purpose of the measure, its scope can be extended indefinitely.' (paragraph 35); otherwise there is the risk 'that all town planning activities are subject to the Directive since, by definition, provisions on the possible execution of building works substantially alter the value of the land in question'.
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3