/dash decentralised implementationofStructural Fund operations by the Member Statesshouldprovide
sufficientguaranteesastothedetailsandqualityofimplementationandtoresultsandtheevaluationthereof;
/dash achievementofsuchobjectivesisensuredthroughtheobservanceofcertainprinciples(programming,
concentration,integrationandadditionality)whichjustifytheexistenceofanEUcohesionpolicy.
Furthermore:
/dash thefirstyearinwhichtheruleonautomaticdecommitmentappliedendedon31December2002;
/dash inthecaseofItaly,only70-80%oftheexpenditurecertificationssubmittedbytheregionsbythe
abovedaterelatetoso-called‘support’projects(i.e.onesconsistentwiththeprogrammes).
Inviewoftheabove,wouldtheCommissionanswerthefollowingquestions:
/dash ForeachItalianObjective1programmeandforeachoftheStructuralFunds,whatwastheexact
amountoftheexpenditurecertifiedtotheCommissioninrespectofprojectswhichwerenotselectedonthebasisofacalllaunchedinconnectionwithaRGPoraNGP,andwilltheexpenditurerelatingtosuchprojectsnonethelessbereimbursedundertheERDF,theESF,theEAGGFandtheFIFG?
/dash Whatadditionstotheprogramminghavebeenamendedinordertomakeexpenditurewhichhas
already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole
purposeofavoidingtheruleonautomaticdecommitment?IstheCommissionpreparedtoaccept
suchapractice?
/dash DoestheCommissionintendtoascertaininwhatwaythefundswhichmaybereleasedthroughthe
implementationof‘consistent’projectsareused?Ifso,whatconditionswillitimpose?
/dash Doestheregions’recoursetosuchahighpercentageofprojectsselectedonthebasisofcallswhich
where not launched pursuant to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by theCommissionnotseriouslyjeopardisetheachievementofthedevelopmentobjectiveslaiddownintheObjective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,partnership,programmingandinformation,inadditiontothwartingtheobjectivesthemselvesandunderminingthecohesionpolicy?
(1) OJL161,26.6.1999,p.1.
Jointanswer
toWrittenQuestionsP-0260/03andP-0261/03
givenbyMrBarnieronbehalfoftheCommission
(12February2003)
TheCommissioniscollectingtheinformationitneedstoanswerthequestion.Itwillcommunicateits
findingsassoonaspossible.
(2004/C58E/016) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0318/03
byOlivierDupuis(NI)totheCommission
(10February2003)
Subject:Tunisia/dashHarassmentofthelawyerMrAbderraoufAyadi
On26January2003,MrAbderraoufAyadi,Secretary-GeneraloftheCNLTandMemberoftheTunisian
Bar,wasill-treatedbytheborderpoliceonhisreturnfromavisittoParis.Hewassubjectedtoabodysearchandhadallhispersonaldocuments(CNLTdocuments,professionalpapersandpublications)seizedinflagrantbreachofcurrentlegislation.6.3.2004EN C58E/15 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
MrAyadihadbeensimilarlyill-treatedon9January2003whenheleftforParis.Suchill-treatmentforms
partofalongcatalogueofattackscarriedoutbytheTunisianauthoritiesonTunisianjudgesandlawyers.
WhatistheCommission’sopinionofthesystematicusebytheTunisianauthoritiesofvariousformsof
intimidationagainstTunisianjudgesandlawyers?WhatmeasureshastheCommissiontaken,orwillittake, to persuade the Tunisian authorities to cease such practices? More generally, what is the
Commission’sviewofthedeteriorationinthehumanrightssituationinTunisia?
AnswergivenbyMrPattenonbehalfoftheCommission
(3March2003)
TheCommissionhasbeeninformedbyboththeEuro-Mediterranean HumanRightsNetworkandthe
NationalCouncilofFreedomsinTunisia(CNLT)ofthecircumstancessurroundingMrAyadi’strips.Thisinformationmatchesotherfactsreportedbythesamesources,concerningintrusionsattributedtotheTunisianpoliceintotheofficesofprominentmembersoftheTunisianBarandthephysicalintimidationofthesesamelawyers.
TunisianbordercontrolisofcoursestrictlytheresponsibilityoftheTunisianauthorities.However,should
thesecontrolsimpingeoncivilliberties,itwouldbeamatterforArticle2oftheEU-TunisiaAssociation
AgreementandtheCommissioncouldraisetheissueintherelevantpartnershipfora,afterdiscussionwith
theMemberStates.
Inthecaseinpoint,becausethereportedincidentsarepartofageneraldownwardtrendinthehuman
rightssituation,theEUintendstoremindtheTunisianauthoritiesoftheirobligationsandthecommitmentoftheMemberStatestothesefundamentalrightsandprinciples.TheEUwillchoosetheappropriatetimeandplacetoexpressitsconcerns.
(2004/C58E/017) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0393/03
byGlynFord(PSE)totheCommission
(13February2003)
Subject:Foreignsalescorporationlaws
IstheCommissionawareofpotentialjoblossesthatcouldbecausedbyEUretaliatorymeasuresagainst
theUSintheframeworkoftheforeignsalescorporationlawsdispute?Assomeoftheproductspotentiallylistedforhightariffsareproducedinthesouth-westofEngland,joblossescouldresultinanObjective2areaadjacenttoanareawithObjective1status,andthereforeoneofthepoorestregionsinthecountry.
AnswergivenbyMrLamyonbehalfoftheCommission
(24March2003)
The Honourable Member raises his concern on the negative effect that any eventual imposition of
sanctionsonAmericanproductswouldhaveonbusinessesestablishedintheSouthWestofEngland.
Inthatrespect,itwouldbeusefultorecallthecircumstancesrelatingtotheWorldTradeOrganisation
(WTO)incompatibleForeignSalesCorporation/ExtraterritorialIncome(FSC/ETI)legislationwhichprovidesan illegal export tax subsidy to American firms to the tune of roughly USD4000 million per year.Inparticular,followingtheCommunity’ssuccessfulchallengeoftheFSC/ETIlegislationbeforetheWTO,on30August2002theCommunitywasgrantedbytheWTOtherighttoimposecountermeasuresintheC58E/16 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion