WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Method of recovery of undue payments to the Netherlands from European Union funds

1. Is its correct that on 22 June in the Joint working group on social affairs and finance the Commission announced that it was recovering an amount of EUR 200 million from the Netherlands in respect of ESF subsidies wrongly paid over the period 1994-1996, particularly in the city of Rotterdam and the Province of Gelderland, and that in mid-July 2001 it would begin a procedure under Article 24 leading to repayment within two months?

2. Will the amount recovered be limited to EUR 200 million, or is this part of a considerably larger claim based on continuing or further misappropriation funds in a later period? What is the scale of this claim? Is the Commission already sure of its soundness?

3. Can the Commission confirm that such a large amount has never been recovered before in respect of job-creation schemes, where 50 % of the costs are to be covered by ESF subsidies?

4. Is its correct that in March the Commission provided the Netherlands government with its monitoring report on the implementing organisation of the Regionaal Bestuur Arbeidsvoorziening (RBA) (regional employment office) in the province of Zeeland?

5. What other regional employment offices are being investigated? When will the relevant reports be available to the Netherlands government? When will the reports be available to Members of the European and Netherlands parliaments?

6. Can the Commission say whether the Netherlands administers monies from European Union funds differently from other Member States? Is the misuse greater, smaller or targeted at different areas?

7. Can the Commission confirm reports in the Dutch press that it will take too long for the Netherlands to investigate the undue payments and that the Commission therefore intends to intervene directly itself?

8. Can the Commission also confirm that even in advance it gives very little weight to the report of an investigation carried out in the Netherlands (Koning Commission) that is due to appear at the end of August and that, consequently, it does not intend to conduct negotiations with the Netherlands government on the basis of that report?

Sources: Trouw, 10.7.2001; Nederlands Dagblad, 11.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

1. The Commission announced in the Joint Working Group the imminent launching of an Article 24(1) procedure to recover 203 million of European Social Fund (ESF) support for the period 1994-1996. In order to avoid double counting, this figure does not cover amounts to be recovered for irregularities found in Gelderland/Rijnmond since a separate Article 24 procedure was already launched for these projects. The formal notification of the 1994-1996 Article 24 procedure was transmitted to the Dutch authorities on 20 June 2001. The Netherlands had two months to respond.

2. The repayment refers only to the years 1994-1996. It can not however be excluded that for the years 1997-1999 a recovery will also turn out to be necessary. But this can not be confirmed until the controls in the Netherlands are finalised.

3. Never before has such a large amount of ESF support been reclaimed.

4. The draft report on the Zeeland regional employment office has been sent to the Dutch authorities for comments. Only after these comments have been received will the Commission adopt the definitive control report.

5. Past Community controls affected all the regional employment offices. The reports have always been transmitted to the Dutch authorities. The Commission does not object that the Dutch government provides the Members of the Dutch Parliament with access to these reports. However, for those reports that have not been adopted, the Commission will decline any responsibility for damage done to third parties as a result of this release. The Commission is also prepared to give Members of the Parliament access to these draft reports under the same conditions.

6. Irregularities in the use of Structural Funds might happen in all Member States. In the Netherlands systematically evidence for a sufficient level of co-financing could not be provided. The nature of this problem concerns large parts of the ESF assistance which explains why the reclaimed sums turn out to be so high. In the framework of the implementation of the ESF in the Member States, this kind of pervasive problem is rare.

7. The Dutch ESF case is very complicated. Thousands of projects have to be controlled and that inevitably takes a long time. The Commission has no plans to interfere directly. The Article 24 procedure for the years 1994-1996 that was started is based on a Dutch control report. Also for the years 1997-1999 the Netherlands must present control reports that will allow the Commission to close financially the 1994-1999 programming period before the end of June 2002.

8. The Commission attaches high importance to the publication of the report by Mr Koning and it intends to study it carefully. However, concerning the financial follow up, the Commission will primarily base itself on the official control reports of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs.

(1) Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.