WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2338/98 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Wider implications of the European Court of Justice's judgment in case C-106/96
Date: 1998-07-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MATIKAINEN-KALLSTROEM
Subjects: Community budget, EU action, United Kingdom, budgetary expenditure, human rights, judgment of the Court (EU), legal basis, social policy

C 142/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

What does the Commission understand by non-significant actions?

How does it propose to react to this situation?

What future strategy does it intend to pursue in the light of this judgment?

Will it seek an interinstitutional agreement on this matter?

(1999/C 142/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2338/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Wider implications of the European Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-106/96

On 12 May 1998, the Court of Justice of the European Communities handed down a judgment in case
C-106/96 as a result of which the Commission froze the implementation of numerous budget headings on
10 June.

On 1 July Commissioner Liikanen said in a Commission communiqué on the Court’s judgment
concerning the legal basis for the budget that the Commission would reach conclusions on the matter
on 14 July.

I should like to ask Commissioner Liikanen, therefore, what conclusions the Commission reached at the
meeting of that date and how the Commission intends to proceed in this matter so as to ensure that the
issues and problems relating to the legal basis for budget headings are resolved as quickly as possible.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2128/98 and E-2338/98
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 1998)

The Commission adopted an immediate protective measure after the Court of Justice ruled that only for
non-significant measures could expenditure be charged to the Community budget without an instrument
of secondary legislation having first to be adopted. As guardian of the proper implementation of Union
legislation, the Commission could not ignore the Court’s ruling. As the authority responsible for
implementing the budget, it had to ensure that it could implement with complete legal certainty the
headings apparently lacking a legal basis in the 1998 budget, and therefore embarked on a detailed
examination of all the headings concerned. Once the check was complete, and taking account of the
outcome of the Council meeting (Budgets) on 17 July 1998, a number of cases could be identified.

In the case of headings where normal operation resumed in full, the temporary suspension will have led to
no more than a momentary slowdown in implementation. Following the Commission’s decision to
suspend operations on 10 June 1998, the Commission acted to resume implementation of the headings
concerned gradually, at the latest by 14 July 1998. Similarly, the implementation of measures acknowl-
edged to be politically sensitive, such as measures to combat violence against children, adolescents and
women, measures to deal with illegal and harmful content on the Internet, support for and monitoring of
electoral processes, and measures relating to human rights and democracy, resumed immediately after the
conciliation meeting on 17 July when the Council (Budgets) was meeting.

In the case of headings which are still partly or totally suspended, those for which a legal basis has been
proposed will be implemented as soon as the legal basis is adopted. The level of utilisation of 1998
appropriations will depend on the date of adoption of the legal basis. In any event, if the legal basis is
adopted at the end of the year, the corresponding appropriations could in principle be carried over and
used next year. The headings where spending cannot resume because no legal basis has been proposed and
because they relate to measures which cannot be regarded as autonomous or as preparatory measures or
pilot schemes will be examined individually to determine to what extent they can nevertheless be
implemented on the principle of catering for the legitimate expectations of potential beneficiaries and
safeguarding existing investments. Authorising departments affected by partly or totally suspended
headings were contacted to determine how they propose to implement the budget in accordance with the