WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1908/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Cohesion Fund
Date: 1996-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, environmental policy, project evaluation, waste management, water supply, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 91996E1908 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1908

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1908/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Cohesion Fund  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0061 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1908/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)Subject: Cohesion FundThe Commission's answer of 14 June 1996 to my Written Question No. E-1093/96 ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p. 82.)) on the financing of water supply projects from the Cohesion Fund fails to explain fully how the Commission dealt with this matter and a number of questions need to be raised again.In October 1993 the Commission approved the funding of the stages of the projects which were completed in October 1995. What was the substance of the applications submitted by the Greek authorities in July 1994 and November 1995, particularly as regards the separate applications for the cities concerned?Will the Commission also answer the following questions:1. The Commission's services informed the Greek authorities in December 1995 that certain projects were not to be given priority. If some of these projects were submitted to the Commission in the July 1994 funding application, why was there a delay of 17 months in providing an answer?2. Are the Member States which are beneficiaries of Cohesion Fund resources responsible for determining project funding priorities? If not, how and by whom are these priorities determined?3. According to the Commission's answer, no application has been received from the Greek authorities for these projects to be funded as part of groups of related projects. Is this not contradicted by the fact that the Greek authorities submitted applications in July 1994 and November 1995, as mentioned above?4. The answer also states that, if the Greek authorities were to submit an application, the Commission could reconsider the cases in question. Will the Commission clarify this point with reference to the above considerations concerning the definition of priorities? If an application had been submitted, could the Commission have disregarded the priorities? If the applications were rejected because of the priorities, surely the assertion made in the Commission's answer is without foundation?Reply given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)In accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 of 30 March 1993 establishing a cohesion financial instrument, ((OJ L 79, 1.4.1993. )) the Commission in 1993 approved the initial stages of a series of water supply projects in Greece. The relevant decisions were published in the Official Journal. ((OJ L 63, 7.3.1994 - OJ L 118, 7.5.1994 - OJ L 218, 23.8.1994. ))In July 1994 and November 1995, Greece proposed to the Commission that the Cohesion Fund co-finance, under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing the said Fund, ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) further stages of water supply projects presented individually for the cities of Thessaloniki, Larissa, Volos, Patras, Chania, Ptolemaida, Giannitsa, Veria, Trikala, Florina, Argos, Tripolis and Voio.Acting under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, the Commission approved the largest of these projects: for Thessaloniki on 20 November 1995, Larissa on 21 March 1996, Volos on 1 March 1996, Patras on 29 February 1996 and Chania on 30 November 1995.The other water supply projects, considerably below the threshold of ECU 10 million laid down in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, could not be regarded as having priority. The Commission informed the Greek authorities of this in December 1995. Following the insistence of the Greek authorities that these second stages of small projects be financed, the Commission is re-examining them city by city, in connection with the waste water treatment projects for the same cities. This type of grouping was not proposed by the Greek authorities.However, up to now it has not been possible to adopt these small projects, as the budget allocation had already been used up by other projects with higher priority. The Commission has repeatedly asked for meetings with the Greek authorities to discuss the non-priority projects. It has not yet been possible for this request to be met.The Commission would point out that Greece has made use of all the appropriations allocated to it for 1993-95, with 60% participation in the environmental field and 40% in the transport sector.It should be stressed that the Commission's priorities for Cohesion Fund measures in the field of the environment relate to major projects in the fields of drinking water, waste water treatment and waste disposal.