WRITTEN QUESTION P-3383/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Aid programmes

The aid programmes for "Eurathlon" and "Sport for the Disabled" are to be dropped from next year's budget.

The disabled have been disgruntled for some time now that they have not been allowed to see the accounts and budgets for the sport for the disabled programme. It has been revealed by a British MEP that very little of the money for the programme was allocated in accordance with the committee's recommendations. An external report by the auditors Europool this year has confirmed that the disabled had good reason to be disgruntled. Only 37 % of the funds for the programme were allocated via the committee in accordance with the official guidelines. The rest of the money was spent on projects selected by the external experts from FIPA themselves, for which they charged outrageous amounts.

1. Is it reasonable to discontinue these two aid programmes when aid has been granted to sport for the disabled for eight years with no basis in the Treaty?

2. Does the Commission not agree that the wrong party has been penalised in this case since the disabled themselves have been trying for some time to draw attention to the problems?

3. Does the Commission not agree that it was unsatisfactory that only a very small part of the funds for the programme was allocated in accordance with the committee's recommendations, when FIPA spent money on producing glossy brochures in nine languages describing the EU's efforts to promote sport for the disabled?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

The question asked by the Honourable Member raises two different issues: the management of the programme for sport for disabled people and its continuation.

On the first issue, the Commission would like to point out that it ordered a financial audit to examine the effectiveness of the actions supported and management methods. The Commission then prepared a new version of the programmes with major changes incorporating the audit recommendations. Among other things, the Commission took over the running of the programme, which until then had been managed by a foundation, in an attempt to improve transparency and effectiveness.

Turning to the second part of the question, the current position is that in Case C-106/96 the Court of Justice ruled that it was necessary to have a legal basis accompanied by secondary legislation for items to be entered in the Community budget.(1) As a consequence of this ruling, the Commission verified what budget headings existed without a legal basis; these included item B-3 2020, Sport in Europe. An exception was made and the payment of commitments planned for 1998 to organisations that had taken part in an expression of interest procedure was authorised, as the organisations had legitimate expectations. This included Sport for the Disabled.

In line with the agreement reached with the budgetary authority (at the tripartite budget meeting on 17 July 1998), it will no longer be possible to enter headings considered to be lacking a legal basis in the Community budget. This includes sport, which means that the Commission will be unable to organise the Sport for the Disabled programme.

Nevertheless, since sport is viewed as a means of obtaining broader goals, sport can also be taken into consideration in Community programmes dealing with education, young people, social integration or health which may benefit the disabled.

(1) United Kingdom, supported by Denmark, Germany and the Council v the Commission, supported by Parliament. Judgment given on 12 May 1998.