WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Structural Funds and regional assistance.
Date: 1999-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Structural Funds, less-favoured region, principle of additionality, regional aid, regulation (EU)

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/77

Apart from the above, the year-to-year development of capital flows does not indicate any marked effects
either from the referendum or from the current Community proposal for a proposal for a Council directive
to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the
Community (1). The developments mentioned earlier, as well as more persistent trends, such as the
globalisation of financial markets, all contributed to influence the capital flows and appear to dominate
their variation. Still, a possible influence from Community efforts to harmonise capital income taxation
could materialise eventually, once a new directive concerning capital income taxation is adopted and the
public and the market can learn the precise content of the new legislation,
implementation date and
implications.

(1) OJ C 212, 8.7.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Replacement rates

What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings)
for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The definition and management of social benefit schemes (cid:129) including their relative level of assistance, the
replacement rates (cid:129) fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States.

Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an
increasing weight in the employment guidelines (1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent
years.

Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been
published in (cid:145)The EU Economy 1999 Review(cid:146), Part II, Chapter 2 (2), and further analysis based on data from
the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming (cid:145)Social Protection
in Europe(cid:146) report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and
measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained.

(1) OJ C 69, 12.3.1999.
(2)

European Economy series No 69.

(2000/C 225 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance

(19 November 1999)

1. Will the Commission confirm that any award to a Member State of structural funding, for example
under Objective 1 or Objective 2, is subject to the rule of additionality, that is that the Member State must
ensure that expenditure of the funds in question by a local or regional level of government does not
replace expenditure from existing budgets but is additional to them? Does this require a dedication of
matching funds within locally secured budgets to match expenditure facilitated through the Structural
Funds?

C 225 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Does the Commission take steps to ensure that the rule of additionality (in whatever is its proper and
2.
relevant sense) is observed by Member States. If so, what is the mechanism by which the Commission does
this? If not, why not?

If a local or regional authority, or an elected representative in such an authority, or an MEP, has
3.
reasonable grounds for suspicion that funds are being misappropriated in the sense of being allocated
without due regard to additionality, what does the Commission consider to be the appropriate avenue of
complaint?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

1.
It is correct that 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 co-
ordination 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) provides that spending on
the structural funds may not replace structural or comparable expenditure undertaken by the Member
State. However, it also provides that additionality is established at the level of the whole of the territory
eligible under an objective, rather than at the local or regional
level. On condition therefore that the
Member State maintains its overall public structural or comparable expenditure at least at the same level as
in the previous programming period, additionality is respected. Similar provisions will apply during the
next programming period for objective 1 while additionality for objectives 2 and 3 together will be
assessed on the basis of national spending on active labour market policy (Council Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (2)). The level of
matching funds at the local level is a separate issue from additionality and depends on the structure of the
programme or measure in question.

The Community support framework or single programming document governing expenditure under
2.
the structural funds is not adopted unless it contains provisions to ensure compliance ex ante with the
principle of additionality. Subsequently, during the course of the programming period, the Member State
provides the Commission with the financial information required to allow the verification of additionality
on an ongoing basis. The regulations do not provide for any specific penalties in regard to non-compliance
with the ongoing verification of additionality.

As it is not possible to draw any conclusion at the local or regional level regarding compliance with

3.
the principle of additionality, the question of reporting non-compliance at that level does not arise.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/99

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Flight delays

It is becoming alarmingly and even scandalously common for flight departures from airports all over the
European Union to be delayed.

Given that all these delays are causing considerable economic prejudice and personal inconvenience to
travellers and their families, their business associates, etc., will the Commission state what the real causes
are, and, if appropriate, what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that flight schedules are adhered to?