1V * 1> 
it it 
is -k 
ù -h COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 12.10.1995 
COM(95) 467 final 
95/0244 (CNS) 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 307/91 of 4 February 1991 on 
reinforcing Aie monitoring of certain expenditure chargeable to the Guarantee Section 
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, for the period 1991-1993 
Proposal for a g5/Q24A {Çm) 
ÇQmçJl REPUTATION (EC.) 
on the implementation of 
Member States' action programmes on control of EAGGF 
Guarantee Section expenditure 
(presented by the Commission) 

CONTENTS 
1. Introduction 
2. Action by the Member States 
3. Controls carried ouï by the Member States 
4. Use of Community financial resources 
5. Commission's assessment of the application of the Regulation 
6. Future outlook 
Annex: Proposal for a Regulation 
1. Introduction 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 307/91, which came into force on 9 February 1991, 
encourages Member States to step up controls in the fieldof export refunds on agricultural 
products and products exported as goods not falling within Annex II (Article 1) and in 
that of certain compensatory aid and intervention measures (Article 2).* 
To help the Member States bear the extra cost of reinforcing controls, the Regulation 
provides for a financial contribution from the Community over a five-year period at a 
declining rate: 50% for three years and 25% for two years, up to a maximum annual 
amount at Community level of ECU 20 million (ECU 10 million for expenditure under 
Article 1 and ECU 10 million for expenditure under Article 2). 
The Regulation provides that the Community financing should be allocated each year by 
the Commission between the Member States concerned, proportionally to average EAGGF 
expenditure in the relevant sectors during the two previous financial years. 
The Regulation specifies the categories of expenditure eligible for financial assistance 
from the Community. They mainly include the remuneration of the agents occupying 
supplementary posts, the cost of training and briefing the agents, responsible for controls, 
the cost of equipping agents, and laboratory costs for checking products intended for 
export, with a view to the granting of refunds. 
2. Action bv the Member States 
Over the period considered, only four Member States, Belgium, France, Ireland and the 
Netherlands, took action in all the areas provided for. The others applied only some, or 
only one, of the possible measures. 
In general, the Member States have concentrated on export refunds rather than 
compensatory aid and intervention measures; in particular, three Member States, Greece, 
Ireland and the United Kingdom, took no measures other than those relating to the 
inspection of products exported. However, Spain and Portugal (in the first two years) 
concentrated on aid measures, taking no action in the other sector. 
The level of expenditure varied widely from one Member State to another, as did the 
application of the different types of measure provided for in the Regulation. Annex I 
shows expenditure by each Member State, by year and by category of measure. 
aid per hectare, aid for the set-aside of arable land, premiums provided for in the 
beef and veal and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors, aid for oil seeds, measure-
provided for in the wine sector, measures provided for in the fruit and vegetables 
sector, measures provided for in the tobacco sector, measures provided for dried 
grapes, aid for cotton. 
2.1 Remuneration of officers 
As a rule, the flat-rate amount of ECU 28 500 per person per year for wages and 
travelling costs of the officers responsible for controls, fixed by Commission Regulation 
(EEC) No 967/91 of 19 April 19911 and valid throughout the Community, was used as 
a basis for calculating staff costs. 
For most of the Member States, these costs were a major, if not an essential, component 
of their expenditure; the exceptions were Italy and the United Kingdom, neither of which 
have submitted any expenditure in this sector. 
In general, remuneration declared relates to officers redeployed following restructuring 
in the departments concerned; rarely does it concern newly recruited staff. This is due, 
first, to the problems of taking on new personnel, because of the budgetary restraints on 
most national civil service departments, and secondly to the need to reassign redundant 
staff, especially customs officers, following the reduction in border controls at the 
Community's internal frontiers. 
Table 1: Number of extra officers declared by the Member States (men/year) 
Member State 1991 1992 1993 Total 
Belgium 8 8 9 25 
Denmark 10 11 15 36 
Germany 19 31 82 132 
Greece 0 4 11 15 
Spain 111 75 55 241 
France 75 209 165 449 
Ireland 2 6 8 16 
Italy 0 0 0 0 
Netherlands 112 131 136 379 
Portugal 0 22 27 49 
UK 0 0 0 0 
Total 337 497 508 1342 
As the following table shows, more of these officers were responsible for controls 
covering products eligible for refunds than for aid and intervention. 
OJNoL 100, 20.4.1991, p.18 
Table 2: Officers declared by sector of activity 
Member State 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
UK 
Total Products for 
export 
(Article 1) 
14 
22 
132 
15 
0 
213 
16 
0 
330 
0 
0 
742 Aid and 
intervention 
(Article 2) 
11 
14 
0 
0 
241 
236 
0 
0 
49 
49 
0 
600 Total 
25 
36 
132 
15 
241 
449 
16 
0 
379 
49 
0 
1342 
2.2 Training and briefing 
Training and briefing organized by the Member States for their inspectors has on the 
whole been negligible, if not non-existent. Any measures that were taken were spread 
over the whole period, in the form of courses and seminars of variable duration. A total 
of about 9 900 officers were involved (see table below for details). 
The level of expenditure was particularly low. Unlike the other forms of expenditure, this 
remark applies in all the Member States (see Annex I for a table on the breakdown of 
expenditure ). 
Table 3: Main types of training fur officers 
rasassssss 
Member State 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain sxsaiMxaJUmœtZ-àsssseiBSssss 
Type of training 
techniques for checking agricultural produce; 
computer techniques 
methodology and rules for controls 
accounting, control techniques 
current legislation, chemistry 
controls on aid per hectare, cotton, wine­
growing sector Tata! number 
of 
participants 
428 ! 
498 
150 
35 
359 
France rules and procedures for controls, computer 
techniques, food chemistry 7343 
Ireland control techniques 168 
Italy fraud, chemistry 36 
Netherlands legal provisions, rules governing controls 194 
Portugal Community law, computer techniques 69 
United Kingdom 
Total control of agricultural products for export 596 
9876 
2.3 Equipment costs 
All the Member States made use of Community financing to purchase equipment, in 
particular computer hardware and software, and vehicles, with a view to improving the 
work of officers responsible for controls, increasing their mobility and capacity to cope 
with more controls, and improving the quality and speed of verifications. 
On the computer side, much of the expenditure went on microcomputers, software and 
printers, and on developing new systems, and updating existing programmes. 
Purchases of means of transport related to renewing or reinforcing the existing vehicle 
stock. There was very little vehicle hire, except by certain French inspectorates. 
In general, the volume of expenditure on equipment was large, especially in Denmark and 
France. In Italy and the UK, this category represented virtually the only item of 
expenditure. 
2.4 Laboratory costs (analyses) 
Analyses were carried out by the national departments responsible for inspecting 
commercial operations in the field of export refunds, and more specifically the customs 
departments, or by specialized laboratories at the request of those departments, on the 
quality and/or the quantity of products exported, with a view to detecting any 
irregularities. 
Expenditure on analyses was declared in seven Member States: Belgium, Denmark, 
France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal. The number of samples analysed 
in virtually all the sectors eligible for refunds was very high, with the French customs 
service giving a figure of about 15 500, and the Portuguese Wine Institute a figure of 
about 14 000. 
Controls carried out bv the Member States 
The information available on the precise number of controls carried out is not 
harmonized, so that no statistics can be established at Community level. Some Member 
States freely admit that they are unable to put a precise figure on the extra controls 
carried out in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 307/91, because the departments 
responsible for control also work in other sectors, and carry out large numbers of controls 
each year. 
Table 4: Main sectors covered (exported products and aid) 
Member State Sectors 
Belgium Cereals, sugar, dairy products, beef and veal, sheepmeat and 
goatmeat, aid per hectare, products not covered by Annex II, 
processed products 
Denmark 
Germany Cereals, composite products, dairy products, meat 
Cereals, sugar, milk, poultrymeat, beef and veal, pigmeat and 
sheepmeat, products not covered by Annex II, tobacco 
Greece Products not covered by Annex II, cereals, processed fruit and 
vegetables 
Spain 
France Aid per hectare, wine-growing, aid for cotton 
Cereals, milk, tobacco, wine-growing, aid per hectare, arable 
land set-aside, beef and veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, 
withdrawal of fruit and vegetables, products not covered by 
Annex II 
Ireland Beef and veal, pigmeat, dairy products, products not covered 
by Annex II 
Italy Olive oil, processed fruit and vegetables, wine-growing, dairy 
products 
Netherlands Cereals, sugar, arable land set-aside, beef and veal, pigmeat, 
sheepmeat, processed products, dairy products, tobacco 
Portugal Cereals, wine-growing 
United Kingdom All sectors 
4. Use of Community financial resources 
All the Member States made use of the Community financial aid available, with the 
exception of Luxembourg, which has never used it, and, in 1991, of Greece, which did 
not use the aid, and of the United Kingdom, which did not request it. 
Expenditure by the Member States amounted to ECU 7.3 million in 1991. The overall 
rate of utilisation of the Community contribution was only 37% of the amount available. 
Only Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France and the Netherlands used up a higher-than-
average percentage (45% to 86%); all the other Member States used up from 3% to 15% 
of the amounts made available. 
There was a slight improvement in 1992. when the Member States' expenditure increased 
to ECU 9.3 million, or 47% of the total amount available. However, this result hides a 
variety of different situations at national level: rates of utilization were above average in 
Denmark, Spain and France (64% to 83%), while Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the 
United Kingdom all used about 30% of the resources available to them. Greece, Italy and 
Portugal used only 3% to 17% of the funds at their disposal. Only the Netherlands used 
up all the available resources. 
In 1993. expenditure by the Member States amounted to ECU 10.3 million, or 52% of 
the total available financing. 
This gradual improvement is due to an increase in the rate of utilization of Community 
financing by Member States such as Germany (from 15% in 1991 to 59% in 1993), 
Ireland (from 9% in 1991 to 52% in 1993) and Portugal (from 5% in 1991 to 45% in 
1993), and to the steady high rate of utilization of Denmark, France and the Netherlands, 
which have continued to use up available funds, and were even granted extra financing 
from resources not used by the other Member States, under Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1116/94.2 
Amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 967/91 (OJ No L 122, 17.5.1994, p.13). 
8 
Expenditure by both Greece and Italy remained fairly low (it should be pointed out that 
in those countries, it related only to the activities of the control services depending on the 
Finance Ministry), as did expenditure by the United Kingdom. 
Annex II shows the Member States' rates of utilization of Community financing from 
1991 to 1993. 
5. Commission's assessment of the application of the Regulation 
Commission departments have reported regularly to the Member States on the application 
of the Regulation, at meetings of the EAGGF Group of experts on irregularities and 
mutual assistance. While welcoming the interest shown by certain Member States in the 
Regulation, as demonstrated by their regular use of the Community financing it makes 
available, the Commission has not concealed its dissatisfaction and its concern about 
under-use of the resources by certain national departments, especially those that might 
have been thought to need them most. 
In particular, the Commission regrets that the Member States have, in general, made little 
use of Community financial support to do more in the way of training, which is a very 
important factor in ensuring effective controls, and which all agreed was inadequate. 
The Commission also wonders whether the measures taken by the Member States were 
part of a well-defined strategy, or simply a response to immediate pressing needs. The 
Commission also wonders about how the Member States view Community financing: as 
a real financial incentive to reinforce controls, or simply as a means of reducing their 
budget costs, with Community financing as an extra resource in a budget that would have 
existed anyway. 
In these conditions, while noting the progress made, the Commission cannot be sure 
whether the aim set by the Regulation, the reinforcement of controls, has really been 
achieved. 
Nevertheless, recognizing that some rigidity in the rules on granting aid had become 
apparent during the second year of application of the Regulation, Commission 
departments took the initiative, in 1993, of embarking upon a revision of Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 967/91, with a view, among other things, of enabling Member 
States to receive financing in each of the sectors concerned, so as to satisfy their 
requirements in the sector where the need for reinforcement was most urgent. This work 
led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1116/94, mentioned above. 
By providing the Member States with an opportunity to adapt Community financing to 
their needs, and providing the possibility of extra resources from amounts originally 
allocated to the other Member States, but not taken up, thù Commission departments are 
confident that they hâve acted not only in the interests of the Member States, and 
especially those that have been most active and most willing to use up all the financing 
put at their disposal, but also in compliance with the principles of good financial 
management. 
Clearly, however, the problems some Member States have in tapping Community 
resources must be attributed in the first place to the arrangements for part-financing, 
which entail setting aside in the national budget an amount equal to the amount of 
Community aid. 
Moreover, experience seems to show that introducing part-financing arrangements at a 
high rate does not take account of the lead time for national budgets to respond, which 
means that part of the Community contribution is lost from the outset. It would be better 
to start with a low rate of part-financing, progressively increasing to a maximum, and 
then decreasing to allow the national budget to take over gradually. 
There is no doubt that as the Community financial contribution is limited in time, the 
Member States limit their expenditure, especially on recruitment, to what they know they 
can cover in the longer term. 
All these factors need to be taken into account in future. 
6. Future outlook 
A long discussion could be held on whether the Community should contribute or not, in 
particular through budgetary measures, to covering costs incurred by the Member States 
for the control of EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure. 
To protect the Community's interests, it seems appropriate to continue providing financial 
assistance to the Member States for controls, but to do so in the framework of better 
structured initiatives in a form different from that provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 
307/91. 
Allocating funds to the Member States solely on the basis of expenditure incurred in the 
areas covered by the Regulation appears too limited, as it does not take account of the 
specific problems of individual Member States, nor of their capacity to use Community 
aid. 
Moreover, to preclude the use of Community financing for measures whose impact on 
controls is difficult to establish, it would be helpful if the Member States hoping to 
receive Community financing could define their action strategy and set the aims to be 
achieved from the outset. 
Community assistance should be decided case by case, taking account first of all of the 
usefulness of the proposed measures, but also of the budget problems that might face the 
Member States, because of the risk that these problems might prevent priority measures 
from being taken. 
It is essential to maintain the systems of control and direct electronic information 
exchange set up between the Member States and the Commission constantly at peak 
performance level. 
10 
To this end, a proposal for a Council Regulation is annexed to this report. Among other 
things, this proposal provides that the Member States should submit to the Commission 
action programmes, possibly multiannual, including an analysis of the existing situation, 
the aims to be achieved, and the measures to be carried out, where appropriate, each year. 
After consulting the Fund Committee, the Commission sets the rate and maximum amount 
of the Community's financial participation (which may cover up to 100% of national 
expenditure) for each year of an action programme, as a function of available resources 
and taking account of the need for the measures proposed by the Member State, the 
problems it might encounter in financing them, and the progress made with the action 
programme. 
Annex: Proposal for a Regulation 
11 
ANNEX I 
EXPENDITURE BY THE MEMBER STATES, BROKEN DOWN BY CATEGORY (ay % of total expenditure) 
Table 1: Expenditure in 1991 
MEMBER STATE 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED 
KINGDOM 
TOTAL 
Table 2: J 
MEMBER STATE 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED 
KINGDOM 
TOTAL TOTAL ELIGIBLE 
EXPENDITURE 
210 629 
963 473 
369 520 
0 
1 207 003 
2 508 219 
67 437 
97 431 
1 887 871 
52 684 
0 
7 364 267 STAFF 
54% 
0% 
57% 
0% 
82% 
43% 
21% 
0% 
82% 
0% 
0% 
54% 
Expenditure in 1992 
TOTAL ELIGIBLE 
EXPENDITURE 
182 947 
744 899 
580 658 
34 581 
1 302 016 
3 112 522 
173 290 
515 874 
2 058 300 
256 646 
383 205 
9 344 938 STAFF 
57% 
17% 
74% 
27% 
82% 
76% 
52% 
0% 
83% 
98% 
0% 
66% TRAINING 
8% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
8% 
1% 
7% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% EQUIPMENT 
35% 
54% 
43% 
0% 
17% 
37% 
1% 
93% 
10% 
100% 
0% 
30% COST OF 
ANALYSES 
3% 
39% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
77% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
12% TOTAL 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
TRAINING 
3% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
4% 
2% 
7% 
4% 
2% 
21% 
4% EQUIPMENT 
22% 
47% 
26% 
50% 
17% 
14% 
1% 
93% 
7% 
0% 
79% 
22% COST OF 
ANALYSES 
18% 
35% 
0% 
20% 
0% 
6% 
45% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
8% TOTAL 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
12 
Table 3: Expenditure in 1993 
MEMBER STATE 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED 
KINGDOM 
TOTAL TOTAL ELIGIBLE 
EXPENDITURE 
189 497 
700 174 
1 495 586 
191 592 
795 254 
3 319 911 
279 645 
455 079 
2 315 994 
454 465 
172 875 
10 370 072 STAFF 
68% 
31% 
78% 
39% 
99% 
71% 
42% 
0% 
84% 
49% 
0% 
67% TRAINING 
1% 
0% 
1% 
2% 
1% 
5% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
2% EQUIPMENT 
15% 
27% 
21% 
0% 
0% 
15% 
2% 
100% 
10% 
1% 
91% 
18% COST OF 
ANALYSES 
16% 
42% 
0% 
59% 
0% 
9% 
55% 
0% 
6% 
50% 
0% 
12% TOTAL 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
13 
f] 
Member 
State 
! 
j| Belgium 
i Denmark 
Germany 
•\ Greece 
j Spain 
] France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom 
Total 1991 
A 
466 600 
1 114 000 
2 409 200 
1 333 000 
2 121 500 
3 683 400 
726 400 
3 047 800 
2 799 200 
997 100 
1 521 600 
20 000 000 B 
210 629 
963 474 
369 520 
0 
1 207 003 
2 508 219 
67 437 
97 431 
1 887 869 
52 684 
0 
7 364 266 % 
45 
86 
15 
0 
57 
68 
9 
3 
67 
5 
0 
37 1992 
A 
799 500 
902 200 
2 436 600 
1 350 200 
2 026 600 
3 935 300 
569 800 
2 988 800 
2 058 300 
1 503 900 
1 428 600 
20 000 000 B 
182 947 
744 899 
580 658 
34 581 
1 302 016 
3 112 522 
173 290 
515 874 
2 058 300 
256 646 
383 205 
9 344 938 % 
23 
83 
24 
3 
64 
79 
30 
17 
100 
17 
27 
47 1993 
A 
1 137 400 
877 600 
2 526 300 
1 523 900 
1 605 400 
4 126 500 
541 700 
3 360 000 
1 749 100 
1 015 900 
1 536 200 
20 000 000 B 
189 497 
700 174 
1 495 586 
191 592 
795 254 
3 319 911 
279 645 
455 079 
2 315 994 
454 465 
172 875 
10 370 072 % 
17 
80 
59 
13 
50 
80 
52 
14 
132 
45 
11 
52 Total 
A 
2 403 500 
2 893 800 
7 372 100 
4 207 100 
5 753 500 
11 745 200 
1 837 900 
9 396 600 
6 606 600 
3 516 900 
4 486 400 
60 000 000 B 
583 073 
2 408 547 
2 445 764 
226 173 
3 304 273 
8 940 652 
520 372 
1 068 384 
6 262 163 
763 795 
556 080 
27 079 276 % 
use 
91-
93 
24 
83 
33 
5 
57 
76 
28 
11 
95 
22 
12 
45 
"A~= financing available 
B = amount used 
% = rate of utilization B:A as % 
14 
95/0244 (CNS) Proposal 
for a Council Regulation on the implementation of 
Member States' action programmes on control of EAGGF 
Guarantee Section expenditure 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular 
Article 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, 
Whereas Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of 
the common agricultural policy3, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/954 lays 
down that Member States are to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that 
transactions financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(EAGGF) are actually carried out and are executed correctly, prevent and deal with 
irregularities and recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence; 
Whereas the part-financing introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 307/91 of 
4 February 1991 on reinforcing the monitoring of certain expenditure chargeable to the 
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund5, as last 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 3235/946, will lapse at the end of the 1995 financial 
year for the first twelve Member States and at the end of the 1997 financial year for the 
three new Member States; 
OJ No C 
2 OJNo 
3 OJNO L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13. 
OJNoL 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1. 
OJNo L 37, 9.2.1991, p. 5. 
OJNo L 338, 28.12.1994, p. 16. 
v 
Whereas the Commission has sent a report to the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EEC) No 307/91 during the period 1991 to 1993, expressing the view that 
the Member States should continue to receive financial assistance for the monitoring of 
expenditure chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section, in view of the Community 
financial interest at stake; 
Whereas provision should be made, for a certain period and within the limit of the 
appropriations available, for Community financing for Member States' action programmes 
in the field of control of expenditure to amend or improve their monitoring structures or 
make them more effective; 
Whereas the programmes must have a number of features enabling the Commission, with 
full knowledge of the facts, to evaluate the measures proposed by the Member States; 
Whereas the programmes may be of a multiannual nature; whereas, it is appropriate that 
henceforth information relating to the annual instalments to be presented by Member 
States each year should be specified; 
Whereas provision should be made for consultation of the Fund Committee on the annual 
instalments which may qualify for Community financing; 
Whereas it should be specified that the Commission is to set the rate of the Community 
financial contribution and the maximum amount of that contribution for each annual 
instalment; 
Whereas systems of control and direct electronic information exchange between the 
Member Sates and the Commission covering the control of certain expenditure should be 
maintained and developed; 
Whereas it should be laid down that the financing provided for in this Regulation cannot 
be combined with other Community financing; 
Whereas detailed rules for the conversion of amounts expressed in ecus and in national 
currency should be laid down, 
• it 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. The Community shall contribute towards the costs incurred by Member States on 
implementing action programmes to improve the structures of inspection services or their 
effectiveness. 
2. The action programmes referred to in paragraph 1 may relate to the creation or 
reorganization of inspection services dealing totally or partially with control of EAGGF 
Guarantee Section expenditure. 
3. The measures provided for in such programmes may include the redeployment or 
recruitment of inspectors and their assignments, the purchase or hire of equipment and 
facilities required for the performance of controls, the organisation of training and 
briefing or any other appropriate means of reinforcing the effectiveness of controls. 
Article 2 
1. Member States shall submit the action programmes they wish to receive 
Community financing to the Commission not later than 1 July of the calendar year 
preceding the start of their implementation. Programmes presented after 1 July cannot be 
considered. 
However, for programmes relating to the first year of application of this Regulation, the 
time limit for submission of action programmes shall be the end of the second month 
following the date of entry into force of the implementing Regulation. 
• 
2. Programmes may be multiannual and must include the following information: 
description and analysis of the situation at the outset as regards inspectors and 
equipment; 
objectives of the planned action; 
schedule for implementation of measures; 
detailed description of the work for which financing is requested; 
estimate of costs of each type of action and in the case of multiannual 
programmes, annual financial estimates; 
cost/benefit analysis of the measure. 
3. The Commission shall examine the programmes presented by the Member States. 
It may request additional information it deems necessary for assessing the programmes. 
Article 3 
1. Member States having presented action programmes in accordance with Article 2 
shall communicate to the Commission at a date to be specified by the Commission the 
information about the annual instalment which is to be implemented for the following 
year, and in particular: 
a) a description of the work planned and a detailed estimate of costs; 
b) an annual application for financing and, where appropriate, an application for an 
advance on the Community financial contribution; 
c) from the second year of execution of the action programme, a preliminary 
assessment of the schemes implemented during the preceding year and, where 
appropriate, a proposal to amend the initial programme. 
2. The annual instalment of the action programme shall be implemented between 
1 January and 31 December of each year. 
# V* 
Article 4 
1. The Community financial contribution shall be granted per calendar year, for a 
period of five consecutive years, starting with 1996. 
It shall be granted within the limit of the annual appropriations authorized by the budget 
authority in the light of the financial perspective. 
2. After consulting the Fund Committee referred to in Article 11 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, the Commission shall, for each annual instalment, set the 
rate of the Community financial contribution and the maximum amount of such 
contribution having regard to the appropriations available and on the basis of the 
information supplied by the Member State. 
Having regard to the interest represented by the measures provided for in the annual 
instalment and any difficulties faced by the Member Sate in financing it, the Commission 
may decide that the instalment in question or part thereof shall be charged entirely to the 
Community budget. 
Acceptance of financing of an annual instalment by the Commission shall not prejudge 
the decision on a financial contribution to subsequent annual instalments, Community 
financing be reassessed each year as regard both the rate and the amount, in the light of 
the results achieved by previous annual instalments. 
3. The Commission may have work undertaken for the maintenance and development 
of systems of control and direct electronic information exchange between the Member 
States and itself. 
* 
\*> 
Article 5 
Expenditure incurred which is eligible for Community financing under other Regulations 
and in particular: 
Council Regulation (EC) No 165/94 of 24 January 1994 concerning the 
co-financing by the Community of remote sensing checks and amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administration and 
control system for certain Community aid schemes7 
and, as regards the three new Member States: 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by 
Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the 
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and 
repealing Directive 77/435/EEC 8 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 307/91 of 4 February 1991 on reinforcing the 
monitoring of certain expenditure chargeable to the Guarantee Section of the 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund9 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an 
integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes10, 
shall not be eligible under this Regulation. 
10 OJ No L 24, 29.1.1994, p. 6. 
OJ No L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 3094/94 (OJ No L 328, 20.12.1994, p. 1). 
OJ No L 37, 9.2.1991, p. 5. 
OJNoL355, 5.12.1992, p. 1. 
# 
Xc 
Article 6 
Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with 
the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70. 
Article 7 
After the fifth year, the Commission shall report to the Council on the results of the 
implementation of this Regulation. 
Article 8 
Amounts expressed in ecus and in national currency shall be converted using the 
exchange rate in force on the first working day of the calendar year during which the 
annual programme concerned begins, as published in the "C" series of the Official 
Journal of the European Communities. 
Article 9 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member 
States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
i\ 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
BUDGET HEADING: BI - 360 APPROPRIATIONS: ECU 44 million 
TITLE: Council Regulation (EC) on the implementation of Member States' action programmes on control of EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure] 
LEGAL BASIS: Article 43 of the EC Treaty 
AIMS: to finance expenditure incurred by Member States on implementing action programmes to improve the structure of inspection services or their] 
effectiveness 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: PERIOD OF 12 
MONTHS 
(ECU million) CURRENT 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(95) 
(ECU million) FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(96) 
(ECU million) 
5.0. EXPENDITURE 
- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 
- NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
-OTHER ECU 15 million 
5.1. REVENUE 
- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
- NATIONAL 
5.0.1. 
5.1.1. 1997 
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
ESTIMATED REVENUE ECU 15 million 1998 
ECU IS million 1999 
ECU IS million 2000 
ECU IS million 
5.2. METHOD OF CALCULATION: 
Maximum authorized as EAGGF Guarantee contribution 
6.0. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE 
CURRENT BUDGET? ¥£S/NO 
6.1. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 
¥£S/NO 
6.2. WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? ¥E£/NO 
6.3. WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? YES/NO 
OBSERVATIONS 
The 1996 PDB takes account of this expenditure. 
THE MEASURE INCLUDES EXPENDITURE ON WORK TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP SYSTEMS OF CONTROL AND 
DIRECT ELECTRONIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION. 
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE: ECU 300 000 X 5 YEARS = ECU 1.5 MILLION. THIS EXPENDITURE IS INCLUDED EN 
POINTS 5.0 AND 5.0.1. 
• n 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 467 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-509-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-94116-2 
Office for Official Publication! of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
z\