WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Prevention of EU subsidies circulating between the richer Member States.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Structural Funds, aid system, enlargement of the Union, fund (EU), principle of subsidiarity

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/93

The aims of the proposed Directive are to:

(cid:18) limit distortions of competition between Member States and between energy products in order to
improve the operation of the internal market and increase the margin of manoeuvre for States
carrying out certain desirable tax reforms, and

(cid:18) contribute effectively to the reduction of pollutant emissions and greenhouse gases in the context of
the Kyoto Protocol by harmonising the structures and approximating the rates of duties applicable to
all energy products.

The proposed Directive would also improve the security of the Community’s energy supply, particularly
through the possibilities it provides for guiding the selection of energy products consumed and through its
impact on overall demand.

The proposed Directive, which clearly fits in with the sustainable development strategy initiated by the
Commission, would benefit all the Member States.

The statistics on energy costs (including taxes) show that companies with high energy consumption in the
northern Member States do not bear a heavier burden than companies in the other Member States. The
harmonisation of structures and approximation of excise duties leads to a better distribution of energy
costs among economic operators in the Member States.

The 1997 proposal for a Directive and current discussions at the Ecofin Council fully take on board
concerns about the competitiveness of European businesses, envisaging as they do compulsory exemptions
or optional reductions for businesses with high energy consumption. Community rules on State aid have
also been adapted to take fuller account of the need to maintain industrial competitiveness at the same
time as protecting the environment.

Lastly, the Commission would point out that a ‘green’ tax reform such as the one put forward in the 1997
proposal for a Directive,
i.e. one that observes the principle of budget neutrality, could bear double
dividends by both combating pollutants more effectively and promoting job creation and growth in the
Member States.

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2002/C 93 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Prevention of EU subsidies circulating between the richer Member States

1. Will the recovery of substantial ESF payments from the Netherlands give the Commission an
opportunity to review critically the extent to which and the way in which subsidies from EU funds are
allocated to the Member States, particularly in view of the fact that current methods of allocation will
become even more difficult when the EU is enlarged to include many new Member States with a standard
of living lower than the current EU average?

Does the Commission share my view that the circulation of funds between the richest Member States
2.
requires comparatively extensive administrative cooperation and control
from Brussels and distorts
democratic decision-making and freedom of choice at local and regional level and that, in the longer term,
this approach has few advantages over a situation in which the projects concerned are financed totally
from national funds or with monies decentralised by the Member States to lower levels of government?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent undue payments in the future? Is it envisaging
even more controls and bureaucratic procedures, which require a great deal of time and human effort and
create annoyance on all sides, or is it thinking of simplifying and limiting the regulations?

C 93 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Does the Commission see any possibility of eventually ending or significantly reducing payments to
4.
Member States with an above average per capita income and reducing the amounts they receive from the
funds, as a result of which the available resources could be fully targeted at the poorest regions and
emergency situations and,
in addition, could possibly be used for cross-border development projects,
tackling large-scale environmental problems and creating large-scale infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

1.
One of the key objectives of the recasting of the Structural Fund Regulations is to improve the
implementation of the Funds for the period 2000-2006. The fresh importance placed upon well-defined
management and control systems should help ensure increasingly efficient and correct use of the Funds. In
this respect, the Commission has gained experience from dealing with cases of irregularity (such as that
involving European Social Fund (ESF) assistance in the Netherlands) which will lead to the recovery of
overpayments of Community funding made during the 1994-1999 programming period. During the
2000-2006 programming negotiations, the Commission was particularly keen that the management and
control systems for the projects involved should be strengthened in order to minimise the risk of such
irregularities happening again.

The problems which arose in certain Member States and regions during the period 1994-1999 should not,
therefore, have a direct impact on the principles governing the distribution of the Funds for the period
after 2006.

2.
The Commission’s workload during analysis and negotiation with Member States on the 2000-2006
programming was directly related to the quality of the proposals received from national or regional
authorities, regardless of the level of prosperity of the Member State receiving the funding. Moreover, the
Council Regulation focuses upon both the decentralisation of implementation and the building of stronger
partnerships. This should allow for increased involvement of the public, private and voluntary sectors, on a
regional and national level, in the drafting, negotiation, execution and monitoring of projects which are
cofinanced by the Structural Funds during the period 2000-2006, widening the social basis for Fund
assistance.

3.
The provisions laid down in Articles 38 and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), along with the related implementing regulations,
should limit the number of unjustified payments in the 2000-2006 programming period. Moreover,
compared with the previous period, the role of the Member States in the management and financial
control of projects cofinanced by the Funds has been significantly strengthened. In the context of greater
subsidiarity, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the Member States to ensure the efficiency and
correctness of transactions, and to prevent, detect and rectify any irregularities that may occur. The
Commission will ensure that the management and control systems set up in the Member States satisfy the
regulatory requirements. Moreover, the Commission reserves the right to suspend repayments to Member
States when the legitimacy of certain expenditure is called into question, and, where appropriate, to make
individual or systemic financial adjustments.

Upon publication of the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (2)

last January, the
4.
Commission began discussions on the future of the Structural Funds in an enlarged Europe. At the
Cohesion Forum which took place on 21 and 22 May, more than 1 700 key players had the opportunity
to reflect upon and exchange their ideas on the aims of future economic and social cohesion policy.
Finally, this matter was also discussed for the first time during the meeting in Namur on 13 July 2001
between the Member of
responsibility for Regional Policy and the
Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. Discussions will continue over the coming months before
proposals are presented to the Council and Parliament on the economic and social cohesion policy to be
pursued in an enlarged Europe from 2007 onwards.

the Commission with special

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) COM(2001) 24 final.