WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Export refund limits.
Date: 1999-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: export refund

C 219 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

and within eight years after 16 July 2001 at the latest. In the first instance, the Spanish authorities must
take the measures necessary to comply with their obligations under the Directive.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 111.
(2) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.

(2000/C 219 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1856/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Progress made in implementing the operational health and welfare programme under the

Community support framework for Greece

From the Commission(cid:146)s answer to a previous question by me, it emerged that implementation of the
operational programme for health and welfare under the Community support framework for Greece was
encountering difficulties and that the take-up of funds earmarked for this purpose was extremely slow.

Can the Commission indicate the present take-up rate of the relevant funds? Have the problems affecting
implementation of the programme been overcome and, if not, what is the reason for such long delays?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The take-up rate of the (cid:145)Health and welfare(cid:146) programme under the 1994-1999 Community support
framework for Greece currently amounts to 41 %.

This low rate is explained by the fact that the programme started rather late. Moreover, a large part of the
appropriations is intended for capital expenditure on hospitals built under the regional programmes, and
so dependent on the progress made in constructing those buildings.

According to the information sent to the Commission by the Greek authorities, all the contracts for
projects in the programme have been or are being signed. Given the nature of these projects, namely
mainly purchases of equipment and the construction of small medical facilities, it is expected that all the
appropriations allocated to this programme will be used by the established deadlines.

With regard to assistance for human resources, the delays recorded during the first years of implementa-
tion may be put down to work on developing systems and procedures to ensure better training and
introduction of the changes required to improve response to highly specialised needs in the field of health.
The implementation of these measures is proceeding in satisfactory fashion and the Greek authorities
expect all the appropriations to be used.

(2000/C 219 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Export refund limits

The current proposals to limit export refunds in each budget year will ultimately adversely affect
companies(cid:146) cashflow by forcing them to buy a Refund Certificate which will (cid:145)cost(cid:146) 25 % of the estimated
refund.

Will the European Union pay exporters interest on the monies held on security?

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/35

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

(cid:145)Refund certificates(cid:146) were introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/1999 of 23 July 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not
covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1223/94 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of
advance-fixing certificates for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by
Annex II to the EC Treaty (1) to ensure that the request of the Community(cid:146)s international obligations under
the World trade organisation (WTO) with regard to products outside Annex I (ex Annex II) EC Treaty.

Among other things, this regulation stipulates that the applicant for a refund certificate must provide
security to ensure that the refunds for which he has applied are equal to the amount of export refunds for
which the certificate was issued, and that the exports in question were effected while the certificate was
valid. Applications for certificates are therefore only valid if a security is given for an amount equivalent to
25 % of the amount written on the certificate.

Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (2) states that a security can be
given in the form of a cash deposit or in some other form. Article 15 stipulates that in the case of a cash
deposit, no interest shall be paid. This stipulation has been in force since 1985. It should be emphasised
that a cash deposit is only one of several ways in which a security can be given, and that a cash deposit is
of course released as soon as the applicant can show compliance with the conditions listed in the previous
paragraph.

Moreover, companies with total applications for export refunds of less than € 20 000 in a given year may
export goods without possession of a refund certificate, as long as the budget allowed for this facility has
not been exhausted.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999.
(2) OJ L 205, 3.8.1985.

(2000/C 219 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/99

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: SMEs and environmental protection

SMEs very often pursue activities which pollute the environment. Taking preventive measures to pursue
for SMEs, which is
those activities in an environmentally friendly manner creates a certain cost
incorporated into the price of their products or services, sometimes making them less competitive. This
extraneous cost then acts as a disincentive to developing the ideas and methods required for environmental
management.

Experience gained in implementing the EMAS Regulation (eco-management and audit scheme) shows that
SMEs avoid taking part in the scheme as they fear that their operating costs and, by extension, the prices
of their products or services will increase. There is, therefore, a need to find fresh incentives (financial or
otherwise, particularly in the context of the 3rd CSF) and, possibly, to create a specific financial instrument
(cid:129) other than the LIFE programme (cid:129) to strengthen the environmental dimension of SMEs.