WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Openness.
Date: 2001-08-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Ombudsman, activity report, confidentiality

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

C 147 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, as a rule, the European Ombudsman does
not divulge names of complainants in his annual report.

It is suggested that the Honourable Member addresses further questions to the Ombudsman.

(2002/C 147 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Implications for citizens’ rights and commercial interests of compulsory participation in large-scale

genetic research in Iceland

Is the Commission aware that Iceland has adopted legislation making the country an international
1.
test area for large-scale genetic research, which involves the compulsory participation of its inhabitants as
test subjects? Is it aware that this means that personal medical information held by GPs and hospitals and
DNA data for the whole population are able to be stored centrally in a database and linked to family trees
recorded over many centuries, and that this material is able to be made available to the company ‘Decode’,
which uses it for purposes of research for the international pharmaceutical industry, whilst citizens of
Iceland are not allowed, as a result of court judgments, to have data on themselves or their ancestors
removed from this central database?

Is Iceland also making itself, through this legislation, an international test area for the ethical and
2.
legal aspects of protection of privacy in respect of genetic data, with considerably less protection being
provided than is currently usual at an international level? Is the Commission aware of any other countries
taking similar measures, apart from Singapore which is comparable in some respects? Is this course of
action at odds with EU rules on privacy?

Does the Commission agree that, under the Icelandic model, commercial

3.
interests are strongly
favoured over individual interests when balancing the three interests concerned, namely the general interest
in medical research, the individual interests of human beings who may be disadvantaged by this and the
commercial interests of the pharmaceutical companies concerned? And if not, why not?

Source: Norwegian documentary ‘Decoding the Icelanders’, broadcast by IKON-TV Netherlands, 1 August
2001

(2002/C 147 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Implications of large-scale genetic research in Iceland for the protection of privacy and patients’

rights in the EU

1. What are the implications of the Icelandic scheme referred to in my previous series of questions,
which makes participation in large-scale genetic research compulsory in respect of cooperation agreements
between Iceland and the EU?

To what extent are Icelandic data used by companies established in EU Member States? By what

2.
companies?