WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2484/98 by Daniela RASCHHOFER to the Commission. Freezing of budget lines
Date: 1998-07-30
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, EU expenditure, EU financing, budget, implementation of the budget, marginalisation













EUR-Lex - 91998E2484 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2484

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2484/98 by Daniela RASCHHOFER to the Commission. Freezing of budget lines  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0086 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2484/98by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission(30 July 1998)Subject: Freezing of budget linesI have the following questions concerning the freezing of budget lines following the annulment, as a result of an ECJ judgment of 12 May in Case C-106/96 pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of the decision or decisions referred to in the Commission's press release of 23 January 1996 (IP/96/67) announcing certain grants for European projects seeking to overcome social exclusion:1. How many budget lines are still frozen and what is the total value of the lines concerned?2. What progress has been made with the Commission's investigations regarding projects which may nonetheless be implemented?3. Which projects had already been financed before the freezing took place?4. What proposals will the Commission bring forward to produce a rapid solution, particularly with regard to creating a legal basis, and by when?5. What moves has the Commission made towards a definition of "non-significant action"?6. Which Austrian NGOs are affected by the freezing of these funds?7. What other organisations etc. located in Austria receive or would receive funds from these lines?8. Who is entitled to apply to draw on these funds, and where can such application be made?9. What entitlement criteria must generally be met?10. What is the total funding for Austria and how is it broken down among the various organisations?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(6 November 1998)The Commission took an interim measure of protection on the grounds that only non-significant measures can give rise to Community expenditure without the prior adoption of secondary legislation. The Commission, watchdog of the proper implementation of Community law, could not ignore the Court's judgment. As the authority responsible for the execution of the budget, it launched an in-depth examination of all the headings apparently lacking a legal basis in the 1998 budget, in order to check that it could continue implementing these headings in all legal certainty.Following this examination, spending was resumed, in whole or in part, under most of the headings checked. However, some headings which concerned neither autonomous operations, nor preparatory actions, nor pilot projects were not included. The list of headings unblocked in whole or in part as well as those under which spending was still suspended were communicated to the two arms of the budgetary authority on the day following the Council (Budget) on 17 July 1998.With regard to the headings still blocked, the Commission is endeavouring to apply the principle of satisfying the legitimate expectations of potential beneficiaries and of protecting investments already made. Thus, several projects will receive Community support this year and the execution of the 1998 budget will ultimately be scarcely affected by the Commission decision to block headings. A table showing how these legitimate expectations have been taken into account in the implementation of budgetary headings blocked in whole or in part has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat and was also sent to the two arms of the budgetary authority in mid-September.For the future, the institutions have reached an interinstitutional agreement setting out the practical measures to give effect to the principle recalled by the Court. Subject to certain upper limits, pilot projects and preparatory measures can be carried out by the Commission without a basic instrument. Moreover, the agreement recognises that no legal basis is required for carrying out projects in the exercise of institutional prerogatives, of the Commission's specific powers and of the administrative autonomy of the institutions.In response to the more specific points made in the Honourable Member's question, in particular, the repercussions of this problem in Austria, the Commission is sending her directly, and also to Parliament's Secretariat, the list of commitments made in the social sphere for Austrian organisations. However, it would point out that appropriations are not pre-allocated by Member State and that, thus, it is not possible to put a figure on the "total funding for Austria".