# CE2004088EN.01066001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/660 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/660

---

(2004/C 88 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4011/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding

Subject:

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that in preparation for the implementation of the social participation programme BG 0102.06 in 2001 the EU's delegation in Sofia received 20- or 30-page proposals (project sheet) on the basis of which PHARE appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 would be paid out to assist 12 existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide teaching in reading, writing and arithmetic for 4 500 Roma? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that in preparation for the implementation of the social participation programme BG 0102.06 in 2001 the EU's delegation in Sofia received 20- or 30-page proposals (project sheet) on the basis of which PHARE appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 would be paid out to assist 12 existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide teaching in reading, writing and arithmetic for 4 500 Roma?

| 2. | Why did one of the bodies included in the proposals, the Napredak Foundation in Pazardžik, where, according to official statistics which are in all probability much too low, 24 000 Roma live, receive nothing, whereas large sums were reportedly allocated to Varna, where only 13 000 Roma are registered? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why did one of the bodies included in the proposals, the Napredak Foundation in Pazardžik, where, according to official statistics which are in all probability much too low, 24 000 Roma live, receive nothing, whereas large sums were reportedly allocated to Varna, where only 13 000 Roma are registered?

| 3. | Why were the proposals concerning the centres in Plovdiv (26 000 Roma according to official statistics) and other, smaller towns where many poor Roma live likewise rejected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Why were the proposals concerning the centres in Plovdiv (26 000 Roma according to official statistics) and other, smaller towns where many poor Roma live likewise rejected?

| 4. | Why were the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (according to its chief expert, Lalo Kamenov) and the Ministry of Culture completely taken aback by this decision, even though up to now they have played an important role in project-related decision-making? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why were the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (according to its chief expert, Lalo Kamenov) and the Ministry of Culture completely taken aback by this decision, even though up to now they have played an important role in project-related decision-making?

| 5. | Is the role of the National Council referred to in question 4 restricted to the drafting of criteria to govern the allocation of funding, with all decisions on the basis of those criteria being taken elsewhere? Who scrutinises such decisions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the role of the National Council referred to in question 4 restricted to the drafting of criteria to govern the allocation of funding, with all decisions on the basis of those criteria being taken elsewhere? Who scrutinises such decisions?

| 6. | What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable?

---