WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE)and Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Checks carried out on ESF-funded projects

In recent years, the European Commission has carried out intensive checks on projects funded from the ESF.

I receive regular complaints about such activities, as the following examples show:

- During a check carried out by the European Commission in the northern Netherlands, which lasted several days, a large number of irregularities were discovered. A re-check showed that, of the 100 so-called irregularities, 95 were actually entirely in order and the remainder required no more than a few tweaks to bring them back into line. The farmers visited complained about the unpleasant attitude of the persons carrying out the checks (who treated the farmers as if they were potential criminals) and doubted whether they would ever again cooperate in this manner.

- We heard of a similar incident which took place in Losser, Overijssel. A local authority official also noted the unpleasant attitude and said that the persons carrying out the checks were apparently not fully aware of what the projects actually involved and what the value of a specific project was. Their main duty was to tell people to check whether the figures added up.

1. Is the Commission aware of the way in which the checks referred to, and others, were actually conducted? Is it aware of the criticisms that we heard? If so, what action will the Commission take?

2. Is the lack of clarity about whether the ESF subsidy granted to the Netherlands will be maintained a consequence of the problems of fraud in the Netherlands?

3. To what extent has the management of projects from Brussels failed, for example because software was affected by the millennium bug?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

1. The Commission is not aware of the criticism mentioned by the Honourable Members. Usually, controls do not focus on the value of projects which falls more in the area of the evaluation of projects.

Controllers check if the project belongs to the measure under which it was financed and the documents relating to the expenditure declared. These are not only invoices but also listings of people who have benefited from the training course, in order to check how many people attended and for how many hours.

2. From 1 January 2000, the Netherlands was entitled to start European Social Fund (ESF) projects for the new programming period. The fact that the Netherlands delayed the start of the projects was a decision taken by the Dutch authorities. The Commission did not request that the projects be delayed.

3. Since the 1988 reform of the structural funds regulation it has been clearly established that the monitoring of projects is a task of the Member State and not of the Commission. The example quoted in the question about software which turned out not to be millennium proof is based on a myth. The software was deliberately designed in 1994 in a way to make sure that it would be impossible to introduce new projects after 31 December 1999. This date corresponds to the deadline for commitments set by the relevant decisions for the programming period 1994-1999.