WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Progress in implementing the operational programme Education and Initial Vocational Training under the second CSF in Greece.
Date: 2000-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Greece, education, operational programme, vocational education

C 174 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

The Commission would also like to point out that its proposal for a Council Decision to replace Decision
91/482/EEC as from 1 March 2001 (cid:129) adopted on 15 November 2000 (3) (cid:129) provides for the current
arrangements to be improved in due course by introducing a reserve of 10 000 tonnes within the quota of
35 000 tonnes for the least developed OCT, which include the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(1) COM(93) 555 final, 25.11.1993.
(2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991.
(3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 174 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146)

under the second CSF in Greece

The third evaluation report of the operational programme (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146)
(EPEAEK) by (cid:145)European Business Group(cid:146), commissioned by the Ministry of Education, mentions deficient
planning, lack of the statistical data needed for drawing up detailed organisational charts, slow progress in
implementing measures and a lack of coordination between central and regional management.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with the above report findings? What is its view of EPEAEK(cid:146)s
progress in Greece, given that in the operational programme for the third CSF which has been submitted
for the Commission(cid:146)s approval, the Greek Government is continuing to fund the majority of activities
which were also chosen in the second CSF? What is the final amount of funding for this programme, and
what was the initial amount, i.e. the amount allocated in 1994?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The findings of the third evaluation report of the (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146) Operational
Programme under the second Community Support Framework for Greece to which the Honourable
Member refers, should be examined carefully and as a whole.

this programme encountered various difficulties,

In general terms, the Commission would like to underline the strategic and innovative character of the
in
programme. The Commission can confirm that
particular in its starting phase. These shortcomings were mainly due to the innovative and ambitious
nature of the programme for Greece combined with a lack of relevant experience and preparedness at the
Ministry for Education at the beginning of the 1994-1999 programming period. It is true that lack of
statistical data and use of indicators and quantified targets in the area of human resources and soft actions
more generally is a weakness. Implementation of measures was slow, especially in the first two years but
accelerated thereafter. This delay was one of the reasons for the scaling down of the programme at the
mid-term review. Although some cases of poor co-ordination between central and regional management
could be mentioned, this could hardly be cited as one of the weakest points of the programme.

The implementation of the programme took off towards autumn 1998. 100 % of available resources have
now been committed in the Community budget for both the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Payments amount to about 80 % for the ESF and 88 % for the ERDF.
The Commission estimates that all available funds will be taken up by the programme before the final date
for payments, which is 31 December 2001.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/81

The initial budget of the programme was € 1 165 million for the ESF and € 221 million for the ERDF.
Another € 25 million were allocated to the ESF budget through the deflator. At the mid-term review in
1998 the ESF budget was reduced by € 190 million and became € 1 000 million, while that of the ERDF
was increased by € 49 million and became € 270 million. The Community participation was 75 % for both
Funds before the mid-term review and became 80 % for the ESF and 55 % for the ERDF since 1 January
1998.

Overall, the Commission believes that, despite the difficulties encountered, this programme of great
strategic importance for Greece will be fully implemented and will adequately achieve a good part of the
objectives set. The effort should be adapted and strengthened in the next programming period, if Greece is
to reduce the distance separating it in this field from more developed Member States.

(2001/C 174 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: The current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the Internal Market and free trade

In several Member States the existing taxation system treats imports of cars unfairly, especially when the
importer is a private citizen. The taxes levied on imported cars are frequently not based on the real value
of the car, especially in cases where the car is a used one. The excessively high taxes act as a barrier to
intra-EU trade and prevent the establishment of competitive markets in the European Union. Article 25 of
the Treaty Establishing the European Community forbids customs duties on imports and exports between
Member States as well as charges having equivalent effect.

What does the Commission intend to do in order to correct the distortions caused by arbitrary car import
rules in the Member States? What will the Commission do to achieve transparent car imports which are in
harmony with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission would refer to the answer it gave to the similar Written Question P-3479/00 from
Mr Vatanen (1), in which it informed the Honourable Member that it is concerned about the problems
raised in his question and that it is doing its best to ensure full application of Community law in this
sphere.

On the subject of the calculation of the taxable value of cars, the Commission has already initiated
infringement proceedings against various Member States for their failure to comply in full with the Court
of Justice ruling requiring tax to be levied on the real value of the vehicle. There are also infringement
proceedings in progress in relation to tax exemptions for the temporary use of a vehicle in a Member State
other than that in which it has been registered and to exemptions relating to the transfer of vehicles on
changing residence between Member States (Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax
exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member
State from another (2) and Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable
to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals). These procedures may
lead to the matter being put before the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 226 (former Article
169) of the EC Treaty.

As regards Article 25 (former Article 12) of the EC Treaty and the prohibition of customs duties and
charges having equivalent effect, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the basis of
its action on tax matters is the ban on discrimination contained in Article 90 (former Article 95) of the EC
Treaty, not Article 25.