WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Method of recovery of undue payments to the Netherlands from European Union funds.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Social Fund, Netherlands, employment service, fraud, regional government, report

C 115 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Method of recovery of undue payments to the Netherlands from European Union funds

Is its correct

1.
that on 22 June in the Joint working group on social affairs and finance the
Commission announced that it was recovering an amount of EUR 200 million from the Netherlands in
respect of ESF subsidies wrongly paid over the period 1994-1996, particularly in the city of Rotterdam
and the Province of Gelderland, and that in mid-July 2001 it would begin a procedure under Article 24
leading to repayment within two months?

2. Will the amount recovered be limited to EUR 200 million, or is this part of a considerably larger
claim based on continuing or further misappropriation funds in a later period? What is the scale of this
claim? Is the Commission already sure of its soundness?

Can the Commission confirm that such a large amount has never been recovered before in respect of

3.
job-creation schemes, where 50 % of the costs are to be covered by ESF subsidies?

Is its correct

4.
in March the Commission provided the Netherlands government with its
monitoring report on the implementing organisation of the Regionaal Bestuur Arbeidsvoorziening (RBA)
(regional employment office) in the province of Zeeland?

that

5. What other regional employment offices are being investigated? When will the relevant reports be
available to the Netherlands government? When will the reports be available to Members of the European
and Netherlands parliaments?

Can the Commission say whether the Netherlands administers monies from European Union funds

6.
differently from other Member States? Is the misuse greater, smaller or targeted at different areas?

7.
Can the Commission confirm reports in the Dutch press that it will take too long for the Netherlands
to investigate the undue payments and that the Commission therefore intends to intervene directly itself?

8.
Can the Commission also confirm that even in advance it gives very little weight to the report of an
investigation carried out in the Netherlands (Koning Commission) that is due to appear at the end of
August and that, consequently,
intend to conduct negotiations with the Netherlands
government on the basis of that report?

it does not

Sources: Trouw, 10.7.2001; Nederlands Dagblad, 11.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The Commission announced in the Joint Working Group the imminent launching of an Article 24 (1)
1.
procedure to recover € 203 million of European Social Fund (ESF) support for the period 1994-1996. In
order to avoid double counting, this figure does not cover amounts to be recovered for irregularities found
in Gelderland/Rijnmond since a separate Article 24 procedure was already launched for these projects. The
formal notification of the 1994-1996 Article 24 procedure was transmitted to the Dutch authorities on
20 June 2001. The Netherlands had two months to respond.

2.
The repayment refers only to the years 1994-1996. It can not however be excluded that for the years
1997-1999 a recovery will also turn out to be necessary. But this can not be confirmed until the controls
in the Netherlands are finalised.

3.

Never before has such a large amount of ESF support been reclaimed.

4.
The draft report on the Zeeland regional employment office has been sent to the Dutch authorities
for comments. Only after these comments have been received will the Commission adopt the definitive
control report.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/53

Past Community controls affected all the regional employment offices. The reports have always been
5.
transmitted to the Dutch authorities. The Commission does not object that the Dutch government provides
the Members of the Dutch Parliament with access to these reports. However, for those reports that have
not been adopted, the Commission will decline any responsibility for damage done to third parties as a
result of this release. The Commission is also prepared to give Members of the Parliament access to these
draft reports under the same conditions.

6.
Irregularities in the use of Structural Funds might happen in all Member States. In the Netherlands
systematically evidence for a sufficient level of co-financing could not be provided. The nature of this
problem concerns large parts of the ESF assistance which explains why the reclaimed sums turn out to be
so high. In the framework of the implementation of the ESF in the Member States, this kind of pervasive
problem is rare.

The Dutch ESF case is very complicated. Thousands of projects have to be controlled and that
7.
inevitably takes a long time. The Commission has no plans to interfere directly. The Article 24 procedure
for the years 1994-1996 that was started is based on a Dutch control report. Also for the years 1997-
1999 the Netherlands must present control reports that will allow the Commission to close financially the
1994-1999 programming period before the end of June 2002.

8.
The Commission attaches high importance to the publication of the report by Mr Koning and it
intends to study it carefully. However, concerning the financial follow up, the Commission will primarily
base itself on the official control reports of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs.

(1) Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,

laying down provisions for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural
Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing
financial instruments, OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

(2002/C 115 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Case of BSE in Greece

In early July 2001 the first case of BSE appeared in Greece; it was not possible to certify the origin or
identity of the animal concerned for lack of data on the part of the competent Greek authorities.

Can the Commission, on the basis of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 90/425/EEC (1), Articles 14 and 18 of
Directive 64/432/EEC (2), Directive 92/102/EEC (3) and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 (4), explain
why the competent Greek authorities were unable to ascertain the origin and identity of the animal in
question? Has Greece complied with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 and the above
directives? Has it established an electronic database, and if so when? What stage has the national system
for the identification and registration of bovine animals reached in Greece?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
(2) Special Edition series I (63-64. p. 164.).
(3) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.
(4) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2001)

According to the report of the Greek authorities on the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) in Greece, major deficiencies were encountered with regard to the identification and registration of
the bovine animals present on the affected holding. As a result of these deficiencies it was not possible to
establish the identity and origin of the infected animal.