WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Application of Council Regulations Nos 1260/99 and 1263/99.
Date: 2000-10-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, FIFG, Portugal, division of powers, financial control, guarantee, legal basis, sectoral aid

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/181

of the airport on the surrounding area(cid:146), which is merely descriptive and does not furnish the list of
information required of the developer under Article 5(3) of the Directive. Furthermore, the master plan
fails to consider the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive. Besides neglecting to detail the
adverse effects that the future airport will have on the neighbouring communities in terms of noise
pollution and environmental pollution, the master plan even goes as far as to admit that a thorough
environmental study into gas emissions will be required. That study has not been conducted, nor has a
date for it been set.

In addition, in accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of the environmental impact Directive, the
developer is obliged to enter into a period of consultation with the authorities and public concerned
within a reasonable time. AENA has ignored this rule as well. It published the written material and plan in
early August, thereby giving the municipal authorities and others concerned a mere 30 days (coinciding
with an office closing period) in which to study them and submit statements thereon.

The ICAO is due to meet in the near future to review and toughen up its noise standards, which will
become binding in 2002, whilst in its communication 99/640 the Commission stated its intention to
introduce Community legislation to combat noise pollution.

In view of these aspects, does the Commission not take the view that, in respect of Directive 85/337/EEC,
the plan to expand Manises airport has clearly breached the rules governing environmental
impact
assessment?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission(cid:146)s attention to the impact on the environment of the
master plan for extending Valencia Airport, and, in this instance, to the possible improper implementation
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and
private projects on the environment.

It must be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.
However, under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC the provisions of
the unamended version of
Directive 85/337/EEC shall apply to any request for authorisation submitted before 14 March 1999.

It should in any case be noted that, neither in its previous, nor in its present, version following amendment
does Directive 85/337/EEC provide for any application to plans which do not constitute an authorisation
as such conferring the right on the prime customer to implement a project as defined by the Directive.

In this instance the master plan at issue does not therefore seem to be covered by Directive 85/337/EEC.

(2001/C 136 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Application of Council Regulations Nos 1260/99 and 1263/99

Potential beneficiaries of structural aid under the Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG),
pursuant to Regulations 1260/99 (1) and 1263/99 (2) have drawn my attention to the fact that the
Portuguese authority responsible for implementing these regulations in Portugal, namely the Ifadap, has
required applicants to provide a real or bank guarantee for an amount which is greater than the subsidy
itself.

C 136 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Moreover, the contract which they are expected to sign with the payment authority explicitly stipulates
that any delay in payment of such subsidies cofunded by the FIFG should in no way exempt the
beneficiary from fully meeting his contractual obligations.

This set of conditions make its extremely difficult for economic operators who are dependent on the
subsidy cofinanced by the Community for the success of their initiatives to apply for such funding, and is
actually turning the investment subsidy into a bonus payment for successful investments.

The payment authority maintains that its approach is entirely a result of the Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)zero error(cid:146)
policy whereby the financial responsibility for any shortcomings in the development or results of the
cofunded project is borne by the payment authority.

The Commission:

1. Will it confirm that it considers any Community cofunding granted to a project which is not carried
out according to the established conditions and time limits or which is not as cost effective as
predicted to be an (cid:145)error(cid:146), and does it consider that the Community funds paid to the project must be
repaid to the Community budget by the Member State where this (cid:145)error(cid:146) has occurred?

2.

If so, will it state the legal basis for its interpretation?

3. Does it not consider that this interpretation of Community legislation is bound to limit the impact and

extent of structural measures and to heighten social disparities?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions concern the position of potential recipients of Community financial
aid granted under Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds
and (EC) No 1263/99 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.

Under the first of these the authority designated by a Member State to manage Community assistance is
responsible for the efficiency and correctness of management and implementation (Article 34).

involves the Member State in
This provision, applicable to structural action in the fisheries sector,
assumption of responsibility for financial control of aid so as to ensure efficient and correct use of
Community funds
sound financial management
(Article 38(1)(c)). It also involves the Member State in ensuring that aid is managed in line with all
applicable Community rules.

in line with the principles of

(Article 38(1)(a))

The application of these principles is reiterated, where the FIFG is concerned, in Regulation (EC) No 2792/
99 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries
sector (1). Article 18 requires each Member State(cid:146)s authority to ensure that the special conditions governing
assistance listed in Annex III are complied with and to satisfy itself of the technical capacity of recipients
and financial viability of enterprises before granting aid.

Accordingly in cases where it emerges that implementation of a project part-financed by the Community is
not in line with the Community rules, it falls in the first instance to the Member State to take suitable
action to ensure that the Community(cid:146)s funds are used efficiently and correctly and that the above-
mentioned rules are complied with. If any major change is found that has an effect on the nature of the
assistance or the conditions in which it is given the Member State must make the necessary financial
corrections by cancelling all or part of
the Community contribution (Article 39(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 1260/99).

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/183

The funds thus released may be reassigned by the Member State to the FIFG subject to compliance with the
rules provided for in Article 53(2) of that Regulation.

To sum up, a Member State making use of the Community(cid:146)s structural financial instruments must respect
and ensure respect for the rules indicated above that ensure efficient and correct use of the funds made
available.

The information given by the Honourable Member does not allow any conclusion to be drawn as to
whether the actual circumstances are likely to entail
irregularity with regard to the abovementioned
Regulations that will require cancellation or reduction of the Community aid.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 136 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3102/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

On 14 September 2000 the Commission concluded the negotiations on a new fisheries agreement with
Greenland, which provides for an annual EU contribution of € 42,82 million for the period 2000-2006.
The agreement, which has not yet been adopted by the Council, makes no provision for separating the two
categories of funding, one for fishing rights and one for development aid, even though the Commission
itself gave an undertaking that the agreement would differentiate between the two, with € 28 million of the
total corresponding to fishing rights and the remainder going to development aid, according to the
Commission(cid:146)s unilateral declaration.

One controversial aspect of the current agreement with Greenland is the low level of utilisation of the
quotas allocated to the EU and the fact that a number of fleets from countries which have shown an
interest in exploiting these resources are prevented from doing so by the distribution of quotas, which
It would seem fairer if these fishing
favours certain countries that do not in fact use their quota.
possibilities (cid:129) acquired with Community money (cid:129) could be used by interested fleets which are presently
barred from access to the fishing grounds concerned.

Debate would also focus on the lack of exploratory fishing to search for new resources and new fishing
possibilities, and the failure to require shipowners benefiting from the agreement to contribute to its cost,
as is the case with most of the other agreements signed by the Community.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s assessment of the implementation, development and utilisation of the third
protocol, which will expire on 31 December?

Has the Commission inserted any provisions in the new text establishing the principle of co-financing in
the form of a fee to be paid by Community shipowners benefiting from the agreement? If not, how does
the Commission justify this discriminatory treatment?

Does the text of the new agreement make provision for more exploratory fishing? With a view to the
greatest possible use of fishing opportunities, has the Commission asked for a mechanism to be included
for the distribution of unused fishing possibilities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

A Commission staff working document giving a technical evaluation of
fisheries agreement is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

the Community-Greenland