WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Payment arrangements for the Comenius education programme.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, administration of the Institutions, management accounting

C 136 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The Commission considers that the MAGP IV should be strengthened by applying larger reduction
4.
rates for the remainder of the period and by requiring that the additional reductions be achieved purely in
terms of capacity. It also advocates the extension by one year of the period of the MAGP IV in order to
allow the future of the fleet structural policy to be considered in the context of the reform of the common
fisheries policy during 2002. These proposals are currently the subject of discussion with the Member
States.

(1) COM(2000) 272 final.

(2001/C 136 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Payment arrangements for the Comenius education programme

There has recently been a steep rise in questions complaining about long-delayed or non-existent payments
of
funds committed under the Comenius programme. The continued existence of projects is being
threatened, confirmed travel arrangements are having to be cancelled for lack of financing, usually after
unavoidable expenditure and far from inconsiderable effort have been put into them. This is causing high
levels of frustration with European programmes and institutions. Citizens who have shown confidence in
Commission promises are being made to wait in vain for committed or promised payments to come
through.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. What is responsible for the delayed payment of committed funding?

2. Does the Commission realise what the consequences are when promised projects that have been
approved by the Commission have to be shelved or dropped altogether because they cannot be
sustained without financial support from the programme?

3. What action will the Commission take to guarantee financing for such programmes without delays?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The delays in the payment of advances for decentralised actions under the Socrates programme are
exceptional and are due essentially to the fact that 2000 is the first year of the implementation of the new
programme. The decision establishing the second phase of Socrates was not adopted until the first half of
2000.

The new programme added new elements to the management of the programme. There were also delays
in the nomination of the national agencies by some Member States, as well as in the completion of the
agencies(cid:146) work programmes and their operating budgets. On the Commission(cid:146)s side, the development of a
new standardised form of operating agreement between the Commission and the national agencies,
providing for closer supervision of the accounting rules in line with the increased responsibility of the
national agencies for the management of decentralised funds, required more time than was originally
foreseen. Despite these difficulties all steps have been taken by the Commission in order to proceed with
the payments for decentralised actions as quickly as possible.

As far as the situation in Germany is concerned, the Commission has already authorised the transfer of
funds under the operating agreement with the P(cid:228)dagogischer Austauschdienst (PAD), which cover some of
the current costs of the national agency. As regards the funds for the decentralised action, including those
forming part of the Comenius programme, PAD was sent the relevant contract on 14 September.
However, PAD insisted that the contract be divided into parts so that it would not be responsible for
forwarding some of the funds to the other German national agency (Carl-Duisberg Gesellschaft (CDG))
which will carry out part of the Comenius action.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/179

This approach, which the Commission strongly advised against, will result in a further delay of payments
for PAD and particularly for the CDG. The new contract for PAD will be issued in the next few days. If
PAD signs and returns the contract immediately, it can expect to receive the decentralised funds by the end
of November or beginning of December. PAD will then be required to forward the Community funds to
the schools without further delay. However, subdividing the contract in this way will lead to an even
greater delay for the CDG, as an entirely new contract must go through the various stages of financial
control within the Commission. The Commission will nevertheless do all it can to keep delays for both
organisations to a minimum.

Since these problems will only arise in this year of transition to the second phase of the Socrates
programme, similar delays are not expected in future.

(2001/C 136 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3092/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Levying of fines in the EU

In Finland, fines are means-tested so that a day-fine constitutes a fixed proportion of the daily earnings of
the offender: one sixtieth of his net income. For this purpose, (cid:145)net income(cid:146) is defined on the basis of the
offender(cid:146)s mean monthly income as calculated according to the most recent tax assessment, less certain
taxes and charges laid down by regulation and less a fixed allowance for basic expenditure.

Day-fines are imposed for a minimum of one day and a maximum of 120. The total amount payable is the
amount per day multiplied by the number of days. No maximum amount is laid down by law. In practice,
exceeding the speed limit by around 30 km/hr may result in a fine amounting to hundreds of thousands of
marks. Fines as swingeing as this are out of all proportion, for example, to fines imposed by courts for
crimes of violence. In a crime of violence, another person(cid:146)s physical integrity is violated. In a situation
where exceeding the speed limit does not seriously endanger traffic, the offence and the penalty for it
ought to be in reasonable proportion with each other.

European Union Member States impose fines in different ways. In some countries clear maximum amounts
are laid down for daily instalments of fines and for the total fine which may be imposed. In setting day-
fines, account is taken, for example, of the offender(cid:146)s income, property and liability for maintenance.

Is the Commission aware of the unequal treatment of citizens with regard to speeding fines in relation to
other offences? Has the Commission reviewed the various practices of the Member States with regard to
fines? What view does the Commission take of disproportionately large fines? Will the Commission
harmonise speeding fines?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

While the Commission is generally of the opinion that fines should be proportionate to the severity of the
offence for which they were imposed, it must be acknowledged that it is very difficult to determine in
individual cases whether this criterion has been met or not. Different Member States may have different
sets of values and what would appear proportionate in one Member State may be seen as disproportionate
in another.

The Commission is aware of the fact that there are significant differences among Member States in relation
to fines for speeding offences. There is no legislation at Union level that sets maximum amounts to be
imposed in such cases. The Union Convention on driving disqualifications adopted by the Council on
17 June 1998 (1) does not harmonise penalties for road traffic offences. This is thus a matter entirely at the
Member States(cid:146) discretion.