# CE2004065EN.01002301.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/23

---

(2004/C 65 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0261/03

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   ‘Compatible’ projects

Subject:

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1):

1

| — | the reason for strengthening cohesion policy (which is supported by means of the Structural Funds) is to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions or islands; |
| --- | --- |

—

the reason for strengthening cohesion policy (which is supported by means of the Structural Funds) is to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions or islands;

| — | decentralised implementation of Structural Fund operations by the Member States should provide sufficient guarantees as to the details and quality of implementation and to results and the evaluation thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

decentralised implementation of Structural Fund operations by the Member States should provide sufficient guarantees as to the details and quality of implementation and to results and the evaluation thereof;

| — | achievement of such objectives is ensured through the observance of certain principles (programming, concentration, integration and additionality) which justify the existence of an EU cohesion policy. |
| --- | --- |

—

achievement of such objectives is ensured through the observance of certain principles (programming, concentration, integration and additionality) which justify the existence of an EU cohesion policy.

Furthermore:

| — | the first year in which the rule on automatic decommitment applied ended on 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first year in which the rule on automatic decommitment applied ended on 31 December 2002;

| — | in the case of Italy, only 70-80 % of the expenditure certifications submitted by the regions by the above date relate to so-called ‘support’ projects (i.e. ones consistent with the programmes). |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of Italy, only 70-80 % of the expenditure certifications submitted by the regions by the above date relate to so-called ‘support’ projects (i.e. ones consistent with the programmes).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

| — | For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG? |
| --- | --- |

—

For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG?

| — | What additions to the programming have been amended in order to make expenditure which has already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole purpose of avoiding the rule on automatic decommitment? Is the Commission prepared to accept such a practice? |
| --- | --- |

—

What additions to the programming have been amended in order to make expenditure which has already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole purpose of avoiding the rule on automatic decommitment? Is the Commission prepared to accept such a practice?

| — | Does the Commission intend to ascertain in what way the funds which may be released through the implementation of ‘consistent’ projects are used? If so, what conditions will it impose? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission intend to ascertain in what way the funds which may be released through the implementation of ‘consistent’ projects are used? If so, what conditions will it impose?

| — | Does the regions' recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which where not launched pursuant to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality, partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and undermining the cohesion policy? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the regions' recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which where not launched pursuant to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality, partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and undermining the cohesion policy?

Supplementary joint answer

to Written Questions P-0260/03 and P-0261/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

(14 April 2003)

Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, sets out the conditions for eligibility of expenditure related to an operational programme.

The Community Support Framework for Italian Objective 1 regions states that during the ‘first phase of implementation’ (2) and in the interest of continuity programmes can finance ongoing actions, provided they are consistent with the objectives, strategies and procedures of the programmes themselves (at the measure level) as well as with Community legislation and the rules of the Structural Funds. It is assumed that the Honourable Member refers to this ‘first phase of implementation’ period when he makes reference to so-called ‘support’ projects in his question.

2

Evidence of the outcome of this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure must be included in the programme annual implementation reports for the year 2002, which have to be approved and forwarded to the Commission by programme monitoring committees concerned before June 2003.

Under the subsidiarity principle of the Structural Funds, expenditure incurred under the Objective 1 programmes is declared at the level of measures; thus it is not possible for the Commission to make a distinction among projects financed under the ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure and the selection procedures/criteria agreed under the Programme Complements.

As this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure is limited to the take-off phase of the Objective 1 programmes approved, and as it does not allow the financing of projects which are in contrast with programme objectives and implementation rules, the Commission has no evidence that it will jeopardise the development objectives and strategies agreed under the Community Support Framework and the operational programmes.

So far as additionnality is concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 states that its respect must be verified at the mid-term review. This is expected to take place at the end of 2003. Within that framework, the Commission will ensure that the concept of additionnality is respected for the whole Community Support Framework relating to Objective 1 in Italy.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

1

(2)  During this period, which ended in June 2002, programme monitoring committees had to approve project selection criteria within the framework of the Programme Complements. These criteria are used thereafter for the selection of projects under the different measures in the programmes.

2

---