WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Amounts allotted under and outturn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU regional policy, European Regional Development Fund, FIFG, less-favoured region

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/3

Especially in the light of the last point, can the Commission say:

(cid:129) what assistance operations are already under way; and

(cid:129) which areas have yet to receive payments?

To clarify the previous question, can it supply tables indicating:

(cid:129) when the Member States submitted their draft operational programmes; and

(cid:129) the time taken for the Commission to reach the necessary decisions?

While the Commission was taking its decisions, were there any instances of failure to meet the five-month
time-limit laid down in Article 15 of the general Structural Funds Regulation? If so, why?

Could the Commission also supply tables specifying:

(cid:129) when the Member States submitted their draft national guidelines; and

(cid:129) when the Commission took the necessary decisions?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat tables
showing the date of submission by the Member States of Community support
frameworks, single
programming documents and operational programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of the European Regional
Development Fund and the actual or expected date of adoption by the Commission.

Most of these decisions were taken after expiry of the five-month period laid down in Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

The reasons for this delay are mainly the result of the considerable effort of adaptation required from the
Member States and the Commission in preparing, negotiating and approving each document because of
the arrangements and requirements of
this new Regulation, particularly as regards the systems for
the establishment of new structures for these purposes and the
implementation and surveillance,
strengthening of partnership and the incorporation of environmental aspects. In view of the budgetary
commitments and the length of the new programming period, the Commission preferred to concentrate
on the adoption of programmes which fully conformed with the new Regulation and the Community
policy guidelines.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and outturn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the ERDF to each of the EU(cid:146)s

1.
Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999
programming period?

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the FIFG to each of the EU(cid:146)s

2.
Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999
programming period?

C 364 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

The amounts allotted to the Objective 1 regions from the European Regional Development Fund over the
1994-1999 programming period can be found by clicking on (cid:145)What does Europe do for your country?(cid:146)
under (cid:145)Overview(cid:146) on site www.inforegio.cec.eu.int.

The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 %, all programmes being entirely committed in accordance
with the programming.
the outturn will only be known after the
programmes have been wound up, commencing in June 2001.

In terms of payments, however,

The corresponding figures for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance can be found by clicking on
(cid:145)Structural interventions for fisheries in Europe(cid:146) under (cid:145)Publications(cid:146) on site europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries.
The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 % once more.

(2001/C 364 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3938/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Number of votes under QMV

1. Will the Council give the figures in each year for the last five years for the number of votes or
decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified
majority voting?

2. What proportion of all decisions are now taken by QMV?

3. What proportion of legislative decisions are taken by QMV?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is not in possession of the figures for each of the last five years for the number of votes or
decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified
majority voting.

Statistics were produced for 1999, but only on the number of legislative acts. Those statistics show that 67
out of the 199 legislative acts adopted by the Council in 1999 had a legal basis requiring adoption by
unanimity. The remaining 132 acts adopted during that year had a legal basis enabling them to be adopted
by a qualified majority, which represents a proportion of 66,3 %.

Of those 132 legislative acts:

(cid:129) 104 were adopted without votes against or abstentions;

(cid:129) 28 were adopted with votes against or abstentions.

104 of those 132 legislative acts were adopted unopposed. This means that 67 + 104 = 171 out of a total
of 199 legislative acts were in fact adopted unopposed, which is about 85 %.

In this respect it should be remembered that qualified majority voting may in practice make it easier to
obtain all delegations(cid:146) agreement to a text, inasmuch as delegations which do not agree may be inclined to
vote in favour once they know they are going to be in a minority. It also strengthens the Commission(cid:146)s
power of amendment and may in addition favour the adoption of a different text from the one which
would have been approved if the legal basis had required unanimity.