WRITTEN QUESTION No. 991/98 by Pieter DANKERT , Jan MULDER to the Commission. Conciliation Body for agricultural expenditure
Date: 1998-04-02
Institutions: DANKERT, European Parliament, MULDER
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU Member State, EU body, European Commission, appeal to an administrative authority, budgetary discharge, closing of accounts













EUR-Lex - 91998E0991 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0991

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 991/98 by Pieter DANKERT , Jan MULDER to the Commission. Conciliation Body for agricultural expenditure  


Official Journal C 031 , 05/02/1999 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/98by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission(2 April 1998)Subject: Conciliation Body for agricultural expenditureBy decision of 1 July 1994 (OJ L 182, 16.7.1994.) the Commission set up a Conciliation Body with the task of mediating in disputes between the Commission and the Member States in the context of the discharge procedure on financial adjustments to expenditure notified by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.1. Is the Commission prepared to allow this Body to mediate in disputes concerning financial adjustments to expenditure notified by Member States on budget lines in Article B2-51 (Completion of the internal market in the agricultural sector)?2. If not, what are the reasons for this distinction the type of matters which can be referred to the Body? Would it not be more logical for all agricultural expenditure in the budget to be eligible for the same sort of conciliation?3. What other opportunities do Member States have for appealing against financial adjustments to notified expenditure on budget lines in Article B2-51?4. To what extent does the Commission consider it desirable for the conciliation procedure to be applied in future to notified expenditure on budget lines in Article B2-51? If so, what action does it intend taking? If not, why not?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(27 May 1998)The third subparagraph of Article 5(2) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(1), which introduces the possibility of examination by a Conciliation Body of divergences of position between the Commission and Member States, covers only EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, i.e. does not extend to Guidance Section or any other agricultural expenditure, such as that under Chapter B2-51.One of the reasons for setting up the conciliation procedure was a desire, given the large annual volume of Guarantee Section expenditure, to avoid an excessive number of appeals to the Court of Justice over Commission refusal to accept all or part of the expenditure submitted by a Member State.As indicated in Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994(2) setting up the Conciliation Body, referrals to it are at the option of the Member State. Its findings are without prejudice to the final Commission decision under the accounts clearance procedure, which may differ from the Conciliation Body's conclusions.Both the Member States' expenditure chargeable to the Guidance Section and their very diversified expenditure under Chapter B2-51 fall under the provisions of other legislative texts and hence are subject to different decision procedures.To bring this expenditure under Guarantee Section arrangements, as the Honourable Members request, would require extensive amendment of the underlying legislation involving the Council and Parliament.Such an operation would also be premature at the present time given the Commission's proposals under Agenda 2000(3) for bringing certain other expenditure within the Guarantee Section framework.As already made clear, reference to the Conciliation Body is not an "appeal procedure" and in the event of irreconcilable positions on the eligibility of any expenditure incurred by a Member State, whether charged to the Guarantee Section, Guidance Section, Chapter B2-51 or elsewhere, the standard appeal procedure remains that legally laid down, namely reference to the Court of Justice, in which the Member State can publicly argue the validity of its claims and the Commission is required to state publicly the grounds for its refusal.(1) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970.(2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1994.(3) COM(97) final 2000.