WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/01 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Financial implementation of the Community Support Framework for Portugal.
Date: 2001-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Portugal, Structural Funds, commitment of expenditure

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/75

of the other States party to the European Patent Convention may also be admitted in accordance with rules
laid down by the Board of Governors of the European Schools. Since this school has a special relationship
with the EPO, that body provides most of its funding.

At its meeting on 25 and 26 May 1976, the Board of Governors took the following decision:

1. The children of staff of the EPO, including the children of staff of the Munich European School,

should be admitted (Category I pupils).

2.

If places are still available, children who are nationals of one of the Member States of the European
Community or one of the other States party to the European Patent Convention (Category III pupils)
may also be admitted. ‘Places available’ means places in a class which may be taken up without that
class having to be split.

The admission and grading of pupils are decided by the Headteacher of the School.

Concerning the specific question of whether the School has applied the admission criteria for Category III
pupils equally rigorously and without distinguishing by nationalities, in particular in the Spanish, Dutch
and Greek language sections, the Commission can provide the following information from the school
management:

1.

In the academic year 2001-02, there were 42 pupils (including 18 in Category III) in the Spanish
section, 39 (18 in Category III) in the Greek section and 41 (25 in Category III) in the Dutch section.

The fact that the percentage of pupils in Category III, compared with the pupils in Category I, is not
the same in the three language sections in question is not the result of a discriminatory policy by the
School. It arises from other reasons including, for example, the lack of Category I pupils in certain
classes of a language section. This was the case in the Spanish section, where there was no 1st-year
class in 1997 or 2nd-year class in 1998 because no Category I pupils were enrolled in those classes.
This is, following the Board of Governors’ rules, the only condition allowing the opening of new
classes.

2. The selection of Category III pupils to fill the places available in all the School’s language sections is
carried out by the School’s management using the following criteria: children of diplomats of the
Member States and the patent agents approved by the EPO, pupils transferred from other European
Schools, and the siblings of pupils already enrolled in the School. The school management may also
admit other pupils for educational reasons, such as a very small number of Category I pupils in a
class, in which case selection is by ballot.

3.

In the Munich European School, the Spanish and Greek sections exist only in the primary school
while the Dutch section exists in both the primary and secondary schools. This section has three
combined primary classes, while the Spanish and Greek sections have only two combined primary
classes, which explains the slightly higher percentage of pupils in Category III in some Dutch section
primary classes.

Taking all of these objective factors into account, the Commission can see no evidence of discrimination
by nationality in the arrangements for the admission of Category III pupils that are applied by the Munich
European School.

(2002/C 93 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/01

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Financial implementation of the Community Support Framework for Portugal

On 3 May 2001 the Council and the European Parliament approved the transfer, to the 2002-2006
period, of the Structural Fund appropriations which had not been authorised in 2000 and which could not
be transferred to the 2001 financial year. On account of the delay which occurred in the adoption of
certain programmes co-financed by means of the Structural Funds, 6 152 billion euros of the appropri-
ations earmarked for 2000 could be neither authorised nor transferred to 2001. Of the 26 297 billion
allocated under the 2000 budget, only 12 107 billion was actually authorised and 8 038 billion was
transferred to the 2001 financial year.

C 93 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

In view of the fact that the 2000-2006 financial regulation restricts such transfers to the appropriations
which were not used in 2000, and since appropriations which were not authorised in previous years
cannot now be entered in the budget, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What was the financial-implementation rate of Portugal’s CSF in 2000 and the first half of 2001?

2.

If a lower financial-implementation rate is recorded for Portugal’s CSF in 2001, what implications
would this have? Will Portugal lose any funding which is not used in 2001?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The rate of implementation of commitment appropriations under the Community support framework
(CSF) for Portugal in 2000 and 2001 was 100 % because all the programmes in the CSF were adopted and
committed. Commitments totalled € 3 202 million in 2000 and € 3 125 million in 2001. Payments totalled
€ 1 337 million in 2000 and € 254 million up to 20 June 2001. The initial payment of € 1 378 million
was fully paid for all the programmes.

It is still too early to assess progress in the actual implementation of this CSF. When the Monitoring
Committee met on 6 July 2001, the Portuguese authorities told the Commission that the implementation
of programming for 2000 was 28 % on 30 June 2001. They expected full implementation by the end of
2001.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1) ensures the commitment of
the Community appropriations for each programme adopted,
irrespective of the progress of implementation in any given year. There is therefore no direct risk of losing
funds in the situation described by the Honourable Member in his question. However, delays in
implementing programmes may result in the loss of funds for those programmes as a result of automatic
decommitment: this rule applies when applications for payment made up to the end of year ‘n+2’,
including the initial advance, do not absorb the commitment made in year ‘n’ and previous years.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 93 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2196/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: BSE

On 5 July this year BSE was discovered in a 14 year-old cow of the brown and white breed ‘castana
svizzera’ from Switzerland. This was not the first time that cases of this disease have been found in cattle
from Switzerland.

Can the Commission therefore say what agreements exist between the European Union and Switzerland to
ensure that all supervisory and preventive measures for cattle in Switzerland meet the safety standards laid
down in the European Union and what guarantees to this effect have been provided by the Swiss
authorities?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The sectoral agreements of 21 June 1999 between Switzerland and the Community include an agreement
relating to trade in agricultural products. Annex 11 of this agreement relates to animal-health and
zootechnical measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products. The appendices to Annex