WRITTEN QUESTION E-1934/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Danube Summit.
Date: 2001-06-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU aid, accession to the European Union, environmental protection, rural development, sustainable mobility

C 81 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/01

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Age discrimination on European national air carriers

(29 June 2001)

In the light of the of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with specific reference to Article 21, which
explicitly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age, can the Commission state whether a policy by
national air carriers of putting upper age restrictions on student air fares is in line with EU anti-
discrimination policy and, if so, what measures it intends to take regarding this issue, particularly as the
EU is seeking to encourage life-long learning and increasing numbers of older students?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is addressed to the institutions and bodies of
the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are
implementing Union law (Article 51). Article 21 which deals with non-discrimination also applies within
these limits.

At present, the only provisions of Community law which deal specifically with discrimination on grounds
of age are contained in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1). The example cited by the Honourable
Member does not therefore fall under this directive.

However, insofar as the fixing of air fares falls within the scope of application of Community law under
Council Regulation No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 (2) on fares and rates for air services, the general principle
of non-discrimination set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies. Differences of treatment on
grounds of age must therefore, on a case by case basis, be objectively and reasonably justified by a
legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim must be appropriate and necessary. In this context, the
Commission believes that
the fixing of upper age restrictions on student air fares may in certain
circumstances meet this requirement.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16-22.
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15-17.

(2002/C 81 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1934/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Danube Summit

The Commission(cid:146)s assurance that existing EU sources can be utilised for supporting the outcomes of the
Summit Declaration on Environment and Sustainable Development in the Carpathian and Danube Region
of 30 April 2001 is of great importance, since these are crucial for the conservation of biodiversity in
these regions. However, there are allegations that several procedures on the use of EU pre-accession funds
hinder the deployment of these funds for supporting the Summit(cid:146)s outcomes.

These procedures include, inter alia:

1.

the EUR 5 million lower limit (criterion for ISPA projects) which prevents support for localised,
smaller-scale, stakeholder-driven projects that are often the most effective for stimulating sustainable
approaches;

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/79

2.

3.

the (cid:145)entrance-ticket(cid:146) (requirement for LIFE Nature) which dissuades many accession countries from
participating in this programme;

and the current Sapard procedures (such as the financial eligibility criteria for applicants) and plans
(focusing largely on agricultural infrastructural development) which discriminate against small farmers
and the non-farming rural population, vital targets for (and potential drivers of) sustainable rural
development, in favour of large commercial interests.

Taking into account all of the above, will the Commission state how it intends to address these concerns in
the further review and development of these three important EU funding mechanisms for the current
funding programme 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession) is one of the three pre-accession instruments
providing Community assistance to the ten Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Between
2000 and 2006 about € 7 billion will be made available to help Candidate Countries comply with the
requirements of the acquis in the field of the environment and the objectives of the Accession Partnerships,
and to finance transport infrastructure which promotes sustainable mobility.

Investment financed under ISPA should be of a sufficient scale to have a significant impact in the field of
infrastructure networks. Given these
environmental protection or on the development of
objectives, Council regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing ISPA (1) requires that the
cost of the investment is not less than € 5 million. In duly justified cases, however, the total cost may be
less than this threshold.

transport

Moreover, Article 2(1) of the above-mentioned regulation provides for (cid:145)groups of projects(cid:146) to be financed
under ISPA. Although the total investment of the different sub-projects of the groups should in principle
be above the threshold, the cost of each individual sub-project may be well below € 5 million. Keeping the
objective of maximising the Community assistance in mind, groups of projects need to meet certain
criteria. For example, they need to follow a strategic approach and meet common objectives, such as
enhancing the water quality in a catchment area (river basin approach), or belong to the same transport
corridor. This approach is encouraged by the Commission; beneficiary countries will in due course present
applications that follow these principles.

The Commission(cid:146)s efforts to encourage candidate countries to take part in LIFE, and in particular the
PHARE contribution towards the cost of entry, have this year enabled the principal countries concerned to
join LIFE. Romania, Hungary and Slovenia have already joined, and Slovakia should soon follow. This
the issues of nature conservation in the Danube region and the
demonstrates their awareness of
Carpathians. Only Bulgaria (6 % of the Danube catchment area) seems currently unable to take part in
LIFE. Though this situation is regrettable, the Commission does not see it as grounds for concluding that
entry costs are dissuasive or for sharing the Honourable Member(cid:146)s pessimism.

As regards the concern that the procedures laid down for the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture
and Rural Development (Sapard) focus largely on agricultural infrastructural development, this is not borne
out by facts. As can be seen from the Commission report on Sapard for 2000 (Report
from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Sapard annual report (cid:129) Year 2000 (2)) the spectrum of potential beneficiaries,
including small farmers and the non-farming rural population, is very wide. As can also be seen from the
report, about one-third of the Sapard funds are devoted to investments in agricultural holdings and in
diversification of activities, providing alternative income in rural areas, while close to half of the funds are
devoted to investments in rural infrastructure and improving the processing and marketing of agriculture
and fishery products.

One of the fundamental objectives of the Sapard instrument is to contribute to the sustainable adaptation
of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries. An essential element of this is to
further the restructuring of the economies of these sectors to enable them to sustain the competitive

C 81 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

pressure in an enlarged Community. In keeping with this objective, with the principles of sound financial
management and with the terms of the basic Council regulation, all beneficiaries must be able to
demonstrate the economic viability of the project and to finance their part of total cost of the investment.
As a consequence, the focus is on the viability and sustainability of the investments, not on the scale of the
commercial interest.

In view of the above considerations the Commission considers that the pre-accession instruments already
address the concerns specified in the question.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) COM(2001) 341 final.

(2002/C 81 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE)
and Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Checks carried out on ESF-funded projects

In recent years, the European Commission has carried out intensive checks on projects funded from the
ESF.

I receive regular complaints about such activities, as the following examples show:

(cid:129) During a check carried out by the European Commission in the northern Netherlands, which lasted
several days, a large number of (cid:145)irregularities(cid:146) were discovered. A re-check showed that, of the 100 so-
called irregularities, 95 were actually entirely in order and the remainder required no more than a few
tweaks to bring them back into line. The farmers visited complained about the unpleasant attitude of
the persons carrying out the checks (who treated the farmers as if they were potential criminals) and
doubted whether they would ever again cooperate in this manner.

(cid:129) We heard of a similar incident which took place in Losser, Overijssel. A local authority official also
noted the unpleasant attitude and said that the persons carrying out the checks were apparently not
fully aware of what the projects actually involved and what the value of a specific project was. Their
main duty was to tell people to check whether the figures added up.

Is the Commission aware of the way in which the checks referred to, and others, were actually

1.
conducted? Is it aware of the criticisms that we heard? If so, what action will the Commission take?

Is the lack of clarity about whether the ESF subsidy granted to the Netherlands will be maintained a

2.
consequence of the problems of fraud in the Netherlands?

To what extent has the management of projects from Brussels failed, for example because software

3.
was affected by the millennium bug?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

1.
The Commission is not aware of the criticism mentioned by the Honourable Members. Usually,
controls do not focus on the value of projects which falls more in the area of the evaluation of projects.

Controllers check if the project belongs to the measure under which it was financed and the documents
relating to the expenditure declared. These are not only invoices but also listings of people who have
benefited from the training course,
in order to check how many people attended and for how many
(cid:145)hours(cid:146).