WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Greek Médecins sans Frontières

In my previous Question (No P-2266/99(1)) I expressed concern regarding the expulsion of the Greek section of Médecins sans Frontières (MSF Greece), on the grounds that, according to the international organisation, it had helped both sides involved in the Kosovo crisis without permission. In the same question I expressed concern regarding the treatment of MSF Greece with regard to impartial approval by ECHO and the Commission of the funding of humanitarian programmes. However, approximately one and a half years later, it seems that MSF Greece is being treated in a discriminatory fashion. This can be seen in the Commission's obstructionism to date over the approval of the Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA), and the fact that in a document from the Development Directorate-General dated 23 November 2000 it is suggested that the MSF Greece programme in Palestine should be suspended, pending the resolution of the conflict between the two organisations.

1. How does the Commission account for the lengthy delay in approving the FPA, and the existence of such a document?

2. Does the Commission consider that MSF Greece has lesser rights than other organisations?

3. Where should an organisation which considers that it has received discriminatory treatment from EU bodies turn in order to assert its rights?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 160.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Honourable Member's question refers to relations between the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) on the one hand and the Directorate-General for Development on the other with Médecins sans Frontières (MSF)-Greece. The Commission would like to point out that its departments have dealt with the files on this issue independently and on a case by case basis.

The decision to accept a bid is based on a large number of criteria to ensure that the Community budget is well managed and implemented locally. Legal certainty is clearly a major element, although other factors such as experience on the ground and available operational resources are just as important.

The internal document to which the Honourable Member refers has no official status. However, it is true that MSF-International opposed the use of the name MSF-Greece and the Commission gave MSF-Greece the opportunity to clarify its legal position in its letter of 19 April 2001 (see below).

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the following points regarding the treatment of MSF-Greece's application to sign a Framework Partnership Agreement with ECHO in March 1997.

Signature of a Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) with ECHO concludes a process of selection and checking of the criteria established under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid. ECHO uses this instrument to determine the most efficient partners.

MSF-Greece did not meet these criteria when submitting its application due to a lack of autonomous operational capacity.

A new FPA came into force in January 1999. ECHO then prioritised the conclusion of Framework Partnership Agreements with former partners and NGOs which had already worked with it. Around 300 applications were examined during 1999 and 2000, leading to the conclusion of 184 Partnership Agreements.

MSF-Greece submitted a new application to sign a Framework Partnership Agreement in October 1999.

Soon afterwards, it submitted an application for funding for a project regarding the tuberculosis department of the Toponica psychiatric hospital. It was not selected for reasons connected with the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/96. To check on the NGO's compliance with this Article, and in particular whether it had operational and financial capacities required to implement the project, it was necessary first to carry out an audit, since MSF-Greece had not signed the Framework Agreement. This would have delayed the action well beyond the implementation deadline of the Commission's financial decision.

ECHO intends to begin selecting new partners under Framework Agreements at the beginning of 2002 targeting applications from NGOs which have never worked with the Office, including MSF-Greece. The appraisal procedure was initially postponed to allow the revision of implementation procedures for Framework Partnership Agreements in 2000, and subsequently the drafting of the new FPA, planned for 2001. As a result, this year priority was again given to partners with proven experience of Framework Agreements and those who have already carried out operations. On 19 April 2001 a letter was sent to MSF-Greece giving them an opportunity to confirm their eligibility. An answer is expected which would allow them to submit their application.

The person responsible for relations with NGOs met an MSF-Greece delegation in December 2000 to ensure transparency. A detailed explanation of the reasons justifying the delay in processing the partnership application was given and allegations of discrimination due to pressure from the MSF international movement against its former section were formally rebutted.

The Commission fully respects the independence of its partner NGOs. However, it notes that there is still doubt over the use of the name MSF-Greece. It will naturally apply court rulings on the right to use the MSF name and logo. Meanwhile it is up to MSF-Greece to provide the necessary assurances of its entitlement to use the name and logo, so that the Commission can plan a contract in compliance with the rules on sound financial management.

ECHO will examine in detail and with interest partnership applications from MSF-Greece and any other NGO.

If MSF-Greece feels its rights have been infringed it can seek redress against the Commission via the European Ombudsman.