WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1931/97 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Commission. Structural Funds
Date: 1997-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, GARRIGA POLLEDO
Subjects: Community support framework, EU Member State, EU control, EU financial instrument, European Commission, European Investment Bank, Structural Funds, application of EU law, principle of additionality, single document

C 60/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 2. 98

As at the time of the last enlargement (with Austria, Sweden and Finland in 1995), the result is that the principle
of strengthening of economic and social cohesion stipulated in Article 2, as well as its methods established in
Articles 130 A with E will have to be implemented in the future countries which would adhere to the Union,
according to the methods to be agreed in the Treaties of Accession.

(98/C 60/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1931/97

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission

(4 June 1997)

Subject: Structural Funds

Does the Commission consider that the procedure for verifying compliance with the additionality principle for
the Structural Funds is satisfactory? If not, does the Commission have any plans for reforming this procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1997)

The review of the Structural Fund regulations in 1993 reinforced the principle of additionality.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 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 (1) gives a precise definition of the principle of additionality and indicates the
rules to be complied with. Thus, the new Article 9 of Regulation No 4253/88 stipulates that (cid:145)in order to achieve a
genuine  economic  impact,  the  Structural  Funds  and  the  FIFG  appropriations  ...  may  not  replace  public
expenditure  undertaken  by  the  Member  State  in  the  whole  of  the  territory  eligible  under  an  objective(cid:146)
(paragraph  1).  (cid:145)For  this  purpose,  ...  the  Commission  and  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  ensure  that  the
Member State maintains, in the whole of the territory concerned, its public structural or comparable expenditure
at least at the same level as in the previous programming period ... (cid:146) (paragraph 2).

In order to check that this principle has been complied with, Article 8 of the same Regulation, as amended in
1993, also provides for the insertion in the Community Support Frameworks (CSFs) and the single programming
documents (SPDs) of procedures for verifying additionality and an initial evaluation of the latter. It also requires
the supply of appropriate information concerning the transparency of the relevant financial flows (paragraph 3).
The  insertion  of  these  various  rules  in  the  regulations  currently  in  force  has  considerably  improved
implementation of the principle of additionality.

All the CSFs and SPDs relating to Objectives 1 and 6 were the subject of a prior appraisal. For Objective 2, this
appraisal was also performed in the majority of cases. In the case of the few documents for which there was no
prior appraisal at the time of their adoption payments will be suspended as from the second advance if it has still
not been carried out.

Ongoing assessment was facilitated by the definition, in partnership with the Commission, of checking methods
applicable  to  each  Member  State.  This  has  enabled  the  Commission  to  obtain  more  relevant  financial
information, adapted to the individual situation of each.

The Commission will examine the future of the principle of additionality and its implementation under the new
regulations on the Structural Funds that it is due to propose in the first half of 1998.

(1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.