WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/99 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU grant funding.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, administration of the Institutions, management, payment, private sector

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/51

provide a cross border service without being required to establish, and to the recipients of services (such as
patients receiving health services).

National requirements that hospitals should be non-profit making are compatible with the EC Treaty. The
Court of justice confirmed this principle already enshrined in Article 48 (2) (ex Article 58) of EC Treaty in
the case (cid:145)Sodemare(cid:146) (case C-70/95, judgement of 17.6.1997, ECR I 3395). Other restrictions need to be
examined in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court in the (cid:145)Kohll(cid:146) case (C-158/96,
judgement of
28.4.1998, ECR I 1931) which refers to public health considerations, and more particularly, the need to
maintain a balanced medical and hospital service open to all as well as to a specific overriding public
interest linked to the need to avoid seriously undermining the financial viability of the social security
system concerned. Quantitative restrictions or preferential arrangements must be compatible with these
requirements. In any event, they may not lead, in law or de facto, to discrimination between citizens of the
Union.

As for the possibility for citizens of the Union to exercise economic activities in the health services sector
under Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty, as regards employed activities in hospitals the conditions
for employment are laid down by the Member States. However, domestic rules must comply with
Community law, in particular Council Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2) on the general system
for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC (3), 78/686/EEC (4),
80/154/EEC (5), 85/433/EEC (6) and 93/16/EEC (7) concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas of
respectively nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, midwife, pharmacist and doctor.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 176, 15.7.1977.
(4) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978.
(5) OJ L 33, 11.2.1980.
(6) OJ L 253, 24.9.1985.
(7) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(2000/C 303 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/99

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: EU grant funding

What is the procedure for remunerating the intermediary bodies (private companies contracted to the
European Commission) who administer European grant funds?

On average, what percentage of the funds does such remuneration represent?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Intermediary bodies which provide the Commission with technical or administrative assistance for the
management of Community funds under a private-law contract can be paid in two ways: either by a lump
sum covering all services, where no additional cost can be invoiced to the Commission (with the exception
of costs relating to ad hoc audits required by the Commission), or on a time-rate basis, possibly containing
flat-rate sums, in which case refundable costs may also be charged (travel, cost of equipment, overheads
and audit costs).

Payment for services is calculated on the basis of the specifications annexed to the contract within the
limits of the estimate. An original invoice must be produced for each payment. Costs are reimbursed on
the basis of original supporting documents or certified true copies.

C 303 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Where the specifications authorise the contractor to take on independent, external experts, the cost of the
experts are charged on a flat-rate basis per actual day(cid:146)s work. The Contractor is required to ensure that the
experts fulfil the same obligations as those applicable to his staff and he sends the Commission a copy of
the agreements signed with his staff, while ensuring that the time declared as worked had actually being
worked.

From an internal inspection carried out in 1997 on the basis of a sample of the technical assistance offices,
it emerged that, on average, payment of these intermediary bodies accounted for almost 30 % of the funds
which they helped manage and 3,8 % of the total budget for the programmes in question. However, these
estimate need to be qualified in order to place the percentages in the proper context. Data relating to the
payment of these intermediary bodies is based on commitment rather than on payment appropriations
with the result that the real cost may have been overestimated. In addition, appropriations, committed in
respect of contracts with these bodies often cover periods exceeding 12 months and are thus used to pay
for services relating to the management of appropriations during the following years. Accordingly, the
proportion of payments from appropriations for a given year can be overstated.

Some of the technical assistance offices covered by the inspection did not have as their main task the
management of Community grants, but rather provided services in support of programme implementation,
such as checking and monitoring the programme, organising conferences and seminars, disseminating
information relating to the programme or gathering and processing data, with the result
the
proportion of costs of payments from the funds managed by the intermediary bodies can seem relatively
high.

that

No specific distinction is made for funds which finance Community grants.

(2000/C 303 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/99

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Environmental impact of enlargement

The enlargement of the European Union will become a reality in the next few years. Negotiations are
currently being held with six countries, and after the Helsinki summit these negotiations will be expanded
to include all 12 candidate countries.

During the negotiation process the future members will have to adapt their administration and legislation
to comply with EU rules. One major and economically important challenge will be to make progress in
improving the state of the environment and adopting an environmental policy in accordance with
sustainable development.

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the environment is included as a priority in the
negotiations, and what attitude does the Commission propose to take to the granting of transitional
periods on environmental issues?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

The Commission shares the opinion of
environment
environmental acquis is a great challenge.

in the applicant states and the alignment of

the legislation of

improving the state of

the
these states with the

(18 February 2000)

the Honourable Member that

Environment is a priority in the accession process. The negotiation position of the Union at the opening of
the negotiations with Hungary, Cyprus, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic explicitly refers
to the objective of a high level of nuclear safety and environmental protection.