WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/01 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE)and Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Checks carried out on ESF-funded projects.
Date: 2001-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Social Fund, Netherlands, financial control

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).

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/81

From 1 January 2000, the Netherlands was entitled to start European Social Fund (ESF) projects for
2.
the new programming period. The fact that the Netherlands delayed the start of the projects was a decision
taken by the Dutch authorities. The Commission did not request that the projects be delayed.

3.
Since the 1988 reform of the structural funds regulation it has been clearly established that the
monitoring of projects is a task of the Member State and not of the Commission. The example quoted in
the question about software which turned out not to be (cid:145)millennium proof(cid:146) is based on a myth. The
software was deliberately designed in 1994 in a way to make sure that it would be impossible to introduce
new projects after 31 December 1999. This date corresponds to the deadline for commitments set by the
relevant decisions for the programming period 1994-1999.

(2002/C 81 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/01

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Council statement on Sudan made on 12 June 2001

In the Council statement made on 12 June 2001, why did the European Union refer to renewed SPLA
military activity but not to the massive offensives carried out by Sudanese Government forces in May and
June 2001 in the Nuba Mountains and the southern Blue Nile region? Why does the European Union
speak of a (cid:145)resumption(cid:146) of aerial bombardments when reports from NGOs and from people on the ground
emphasise that the aerial bombardments have never actually stopped? Should not the European Union
consider the appointment of a special envoy for Sudan, based in Nairobi, with a mandate to carry out
regular visits to the area concerned and to compile objective and accurate information from both the
government and the insurgents?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

In the Declaration by the Presidency on 12 June 2001 on the Sudanese peace process, the European Union
expressed its concern at the renewed military activity by the Sudan People(cid:146)s Liberation Army (SPLA),
particularly in Bahr al-Ghazal in Southern Sudan, and by the Government of Sudan(cid:146)s resumption of aerial
bombings in response to this offensive. The language used in this declaration should be viewed in the
context of the outcome of the Summit of the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development)
Committee on the Sudan, held in Nairobi on 2 June 2001. The outcome of this Summit had led the
European Union to expect the peace process to be reinvigorated. Indeed, the Government of Sudan had
given a commitment at the Summit to halt aerial bombings and the two parties had agreed to make the
negotiating teams permanent, developments which were welcomed by the EU in the declaration by the
Presidency on 8 June 2001. On observing that the commitments given had been breached only a few days
after the Summit, the EU again called on both parties to halt their military activity and urged the
Government of Sudan to fully honour its commitment to cease aerial bombings.

With regard to the idea of appointing a special envoy for Sudan, the Council can assure the Honourable
Member that the European Union is monitoring the situation in the country very closely, particularly
through the EU(cid:146)s Heads of Mission in Khartoum and in other countries concerned in the region.

(2002/C 81 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1950/01

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Ratification of the Traffic Protocol

When will the ratification of the Traffic Protocol be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers of
Transport?