WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Recovery of own resources in connection with combating fraud

The Commission's annual report 2000 on the protection of the Community's financial interests and the fight against fraud discusses the financial follow-up measures in the fight against fraud and says that: the recovery rates, i.e. the repayment of sums that have gone missing is still unsatisfactory. Recovery procedures in the Member States are frequently too slow. The Commission has therefore introduced a comprehensive monitoring strategy and, where own resources and indirect expenditure cannot be recovered because of negligence on the part of the Member State concerned, the Commission can hold the Member State liable for the relevant amounts.

In connection with this report, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. To what extent does the Commission exercise its right to claim the amounts concerned from the Member State?

2. In how many cases during the past two years has the Commission successfully claimed these amounts from Member States?

3. How many such cases occurred in which Member States?

4. How high is the sum repaid to the Commission as a result of all recoveries over the past two years and what proportion of total financial irregularities does it represent?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

On the matter of the recovery of traditional own resources, the Honourable Member's question makes a distinction between two aspects: the national recovery procedures, which produce the recovery rate, and the procedure for writing off amounts exceeding EUR 10 000 which Member States consider to be definitively lost and which they must report to the Commission each year so that the Commission can decide what action to take.

The Member States must apply the same rigour to the recovery of own resources as they do to the recovery of national resources. The low rate of recovery recorded and the differences between Member States in amounts recovered can be accounted for primarily by each Member State's specific recovery procedures, especially where administrative and/or judicial appeal procedures, often lengthy and complex, are initiated by an operator. The Commission has no say in the national provisions governing recovery. The recovery rate is only of limited significance; it is not an accurate guide to the performance of the national authorities responsible for recovery.

The writing-off procedure, on the other hand, enables the Commission to assess in each case the diligence shown by the national authorities in the recovery process. If, on completion of the procedure, the Commission believes that the Member State in question has not shown the necessary diligence, it claims from it the lost revenue by virtue of Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1150/2000(1).

The Commission can provide the following replies to the questions relating to traditional own resources:

1. The Commission examines each case in which duties in excess of EUR 10 000 are written off from the angle of the diligence shown by the Member State concerned. It then informs that Member State of its position. Whenever the Commission, by reasoned decision, refuses to allow the amount to be written off, it holds the Member State liable for the amount not recovered.

2. In 2000 and 2001, the Commission dealt with 339 cases of writing-off reported by six Member States (3 by the Netherlands, 10 by the United Kingdom, 3 by France, 3 by Sweden, 3 by Portugal and 317 by Germany); these 339 cases represent a total of EUR 44 116 013,71 in traditional own resources. In 129 of these 339 cases (i.e. 38 % of the total number), the Commission refused to allow the amounts to be written off. The amounts involved were EUR 8 178 716,89 (i.e. 18,5 % of the total). For any delay in paying over these amounts, penalty interest is imposed.

3. Between 1992 and 2000, 405 cases of writing-off were submitted to the Commission by ten Member States, but in very different proportions. Germany submitted 82,20 % of the cases, the United Kingdom 7,65 % and the Netherlands 4,7 %.

4. The comparison between amounts written off which the Commission refuses and the total amount of fraud and irregularities is of very little significance. The figure for fraud and irregularities relates to the last two years, whereas the cases of writing-off examined by the Commission go back mostly to earlier years.

The Commission would make the following points on the questions relating to indirect expenditure: the question about indirect expenditure lost because of the negligence of the Member State must be linked to the subject of the question, namely the fight against fraud. Corrections under the clearance of accounts procedure have, for the past seven years, not involved any amounts relating to the recovery of amounts in cases of fraud. The comprehensive monitoring strategy to which the Honourable Member refers does not concern the clearance of accounts by Directorate General Agriculture. To sum up, the question does not concern the clearance of accounts.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000, OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.