WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies, incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by

Commission officials have been noted, all of which have had disastrous results in terms of the economy, natural resources and the environment. Typical examples are the Egnatia Highway, the sewage treatment plant at Ermioni, the hydroelectric plant at Ilariona on the River Aliakmonas, the Smokoovo dam, the tunnels at Mouzaki and Pyli Trikalon, the reservoirs on Kalymnos and Lipsi, the forest village at Xanthi and the dams in Aitolo-Akarnia and Parthenio, Leros. Reports frequently appear in the Greek press concerning these projects (e.g. To Vima of 17 February 2002).

Given that management and monitoring have not been carried out in the optimal manner, will the Commission say:

1. what penalties will be imposed on those responsible and the Community officials who carried out the relevant checks in view of the large sums invested in projects and constructions which will never come into operation even though they are finished, such as the Goura bridge and the Metsovo tunnel, and

2. what measures it has taken or proposes to take in response to the failure to complete the above projects and the lack of clarity concerning their cost and the timetable for delivery?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Honourable Member will be aware that the responsibilities of Member States and of the Commission for the sound management of interventions co-financed by the European Structural Funds are defined by the legislation of the Union governing these funds.

This legislation provides that all expenditure declared by a Member State to the Commission for the closure and the final payment concerning an intervention of the programming period 1994-1999, is linked with projects and actions which had been completed and were operational by the end 2001 at the latest. In cases where work for specific projects is still in progress at that date, the Member State is required to present to the Commission its undertaking that works will be completed and the projects concerned will become operational within a reasonable delay.

Abandoned projects, or those which have been completed but are not operational, should be excluded from the final list of projects co-financed, submitted by the Member State to the Commission for the closure of interventions of the programming period 1994-1999. If they have been included provisionally in earlier lists, they should be withdrawn from this final list submitted to the Commission.

As regards the Cohesion Fund for the programming period 1994-1999, Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund(1), provides that the final payment is made, provided that a project or a stage of project is complete and operational. If that is not the case, the Commission can proceed to recover earlier payments as necessary.

It is the responsibility of the Member State to give a reliable assurance to the Commission that the above mentioned conditions are met, when they present the final payment request relating to the closure of Structural Funds interventions and Cohesion Fund projects. The Commission carries out checks of a representative sample of projects and actions included in the final report or linked to the final payment request made by Member State.

The Commission does not consider that there have been insufficient controls. The control of individual projects co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund is first and foremost the responsibility of the Member State. The regulations in force require the Commission to make a sample controls of individual projects.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.