WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unutilised Structural Funds appropriations.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Structural Funds, commitment of expenditure, inclusion in the budget, regional policy

C 147 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

However, there are plans to amend the Directive so as to ensure greater harmonisation. Until such time as
this is done, those concerned can refer to the Commission’s interpretative communication in which it
reiterated (in 1996) the principles of Community law applicable to procedures for the type-approval and
registration of vehicles previously registered in another Member State (5).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (OJ L 160,
30.6.2000).

(2) COM(2001) 505 final.
(3) Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial

matters (OJ L 174, 27.6.2001).

(4) OJ L 49, 25.2.1999.
(5) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.

(2002/C 147 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Unutilised Structural Funds appropriations

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy states in ‘Inforegio News’ (No. 86 of May 2001) that:
‘On
3 May last, the Council and the European Parliament approved plans to distribute over the five years from
2002 to 2006 Structural Funds appropriations not committed in 2000 nor carried over to 2001’. It goes
on to state that: ‘The funding in question is worth EUR 6 152 million, of which half from Greek Objective
1 programmes’, and adds that: ‘The financial rules for 2000-2006 permit this type of transfer only for
unused amounts from 2000 = uncommitted funding from subsequent years may not be reallocated within
the budget’.

Can the Commission confirm that this means that those countries which have been unable to use up their
Community funds for 2001 will definitively forfeit these funds? What indications are there concerning the
take-up of Structural Funds appropriations in Greece for 2001? What will happen to funds from the third
Community Support Framework (CSF) which are not used up during the years of implementation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

1.

Loss of commitment appropriations not used in 2001

In view of the deadlines for adopting the new generation of programmes for 2000-2006, the
interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999 stipulates that the commitment appropriations for the first
year of the 2000-2006 programming period could be the subject of rebudgeting in 2001 if not used
in 2000. Under the financial appropriations adopted in Berlin and confirmed by Council Regulation
(EC) No 1260/1999 (1) the commitment appropriations allocated for each year from 2001 to 2006
and not utilised by the end of each year will be forfeited without the possibility of re-allocation to the
budget for the following year(s). However, this provision is only a minor problem for Greece because,
apart from the Operational Programme (OP) covering technical assistance which is in the course of
adoption and the amended environmental OP, all the Objective 1 programmes have been adopted and
the commitments for the annual instalments for the following years will be paid automatically.

2.

Forecast Greek take-up of Structural Fund commitment appropriations in 2001

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

The allocation of commitment appropriations for Greece under ERDF Objective 1 is EUR 2 122
million for 2001, of which EUR 2 091 million has to date been committed and EUR 31 million has
not yet been used. The Greece/Bulgaria and Greece/Cyprus Interreg programmes should be approved

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/15

before the end of 2001. The 2001 budget allocation of commitment appropriations for those two
programmes is EUR 42 million.

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section (EAGGF Guidance Section)

The 2000 budget allocation for all Objective 1 programmes under the EAGGF Guidance Section and
the Leader+ Community initiative has been re-allocated to the budget for 2002 to 2006.

The total 2001 budget allocation for Greece, EUR 341,2 million, was committed under Objective 1
for the EAGGF Guidance Section. The 7 % advance of EUR 158,2 million has been paid.

Under Leader+, a national programme has been adopted to commit the entire annual instalment of
EUR 28 million for 2001. This sum should have been committed and the initial advance paid before
31 December 2001.

European Social Fund (ESF)

The budget allocation of ESF commitment appropriations for 2001 is EUR 623 320 666, of which
EUR 621 741 332 has already been sent [sic]. EUR 1 579 334 has been set aside for the technical
assistance OP which is still under examination. The 7 % instalment covering the entire programming
period amounting to EUR 295 769 306 has been paid for all the programmes adopted.

Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)

The FIFG budget allocation for 2001, EUR 26,5 million, was committed immediately. The 7 % advance
for the total FIFG programming (EUR 14 777 000) has been paid to the Member State.

3. Appropriations under the third CSF not utilised during the period

The risk of loss of appropriations resulting from a low degree of implementation of the programmes
stems from the application of the rule (Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999), whereby any
part of a commitment which is not settled by the end of year n+2 is decommitted and the Community
contribution to the relevant programme is reduced accordingly.

Each Member State had until 31 December 2003 to make declarations of expenditure relating to the
use of 2001 Structural Fund commitment appropriations.

The ‘year n+2’ rule will also apply in 2002 and subsequent years.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Openness

In the Ombudsman’s report for 2000, reference is made (page 63) to a complaint (No 395/99) against the
Commission by an MEP alleging a lack of cooperation from the Commission in securing transparency in
certain procedures.

the name of

However,
is the
Commission’s view of Members who complain about lack of transparency in the Commission but who do
not want transparency in their own conduct? In the interests of transparency, is the Commission willing to
name the MEP?

the MEP is not mentioned, presumably at his own request. What