WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/01 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) and Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission. Implementation of the ESF in the Netherlands from 1994 to 1996.
Date: 2001-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Social Fund, Netherlands, exchange of information, financial control, management, report, use of aid

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/79

of products offered to the consumer (1). Member States were required to implement this Directive by March
2000. The Directive’s full text is available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/
pric_indi/index_en.html.

VAT is expressly included in the definition of ‘selling price’ and ‘unit price’ in Article 2 (a) and (b) of
Directive 98/6/EC. The Directive includes in Article 4(1) a general obligation to indicate the selling price
and the unit price. Only limited and optional exemptions are permitted, none of which provides for
leaving taxes out of these prices.

It is the obligation of the Member States to properly implement the above-mentioned provisions.

(1) OJ L 80, 18.3.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/01

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) and Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the ESF in the Netherlands from 1994 to 1996

(4 September 2001)

On 20 July 2001 Director-General Quintin wrote to the Netherlands government informing it of the
commencement of the procedure provided for in Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 (1) of
19 December 1988 in respect of the implementation, in the Netherlands, of projects financed by the
European Social Fund over the period 1994 to 1996.

Article 10(2) of Regulation (EEC) 438/2001 (2) of 2 March 2001 stipulates that samples must cover
1.
‘at least 5 % of the total eligible expenditure and be based on a representative sample of the operations
approved’. The report of the accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment of
7 June 2001, which gave rise to the Commission’s letter, covers 45 projects which together represent only
1,21 % of
total ESF support granted to the Netherlands over the period 1994 to 1996. Can the
Commission indicate why it is apparently satisfied with a sample which, at least in terms of numbers, fails
to meet the criteria laid down by Community law?

2.
In paragraph 4.1 of its report, the accounting department says that it is not possible to make a
statistically reliable estimate of the total amount of ESF subsidies, for the period 1994 to 1996, that was
regular or irregular/uncertain on the basis of the investigation, as the latter is too limited in scope in
relation to the large number of errors and the many different kinds of errors involved. In her letter,
however, DG Quintin states that the Commission notes that the reported facts relate to an arbitrary
sample. The irregularities and uncertainties found are therefore of a systematic nature. Does the
Commission really believe that the systematic nature of irregularities and uncertainties can be established
purely on the basis of the arbitrary nature of a sample, without taking account of the size of the sample
involved?

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Regulation (EEC) 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 (1) does not apply to the 1994-1999 programming
1.
period. However, regulations in force at that time already required Member States to take the necessary
measures to verify on a regular basis that operations financed by the Community have been properly
carried out.

In order to obtain representative figures, the Commission has always insisted on a sample covering at least
5 % of total expenditure and of the number of projects, i.e. approximately 200 projects. However, the
Dutch authorities maintained their sample of 45 projects, with the intention to determine later, on the
basis of the results of this control, whether and to what extent further action would be necessary.

C 115 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

This sample was then controlled by the internal accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs
and Employment. In its ensuing report, this department recommends that, in view of the disproportional
large investment which would be needed to control a larger sample, no further investigation into 1994-
1996 should be undertaken. Moreover, it recommends that the results arrived at during this control, i.e.
the results based on the 45 project-sample, should be used for reaching an agreement with the
Commission on the amount to be reimbursed. The Commission does not know whether the Dutch
authorities have endorsed these recommendations. It should be noted, however, that these authorities have
not forwarded any information to the Commission apart from the control report mentioned above.

The Commission refered clearly in its letter of 20 July 2001 o a random sample of projects, and not

2.
to an arbitrary sample.

As stated before, the Commission has always stressed the importance of taking a sample of approximately
200 projects for the period 1994 to 1996. However, in view of the conclusions of the aforementioned
accountants’ report, the Commission based its action on the information available.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted
under the Structural Funds.

(2002/C 115 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2423/01

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) and Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the ESF in the Netherlands from 1994 to 1996

(4 September 2001)

On 20 July 2001 Director-General Quintin wrote to the Netherlands government informing it of the
commencement of the procedure provided for in Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 (1) of
19 December 1988 in respect of the implementation, in the Netherlands, of projects financed by the
European Social Fund over the period 1994 to 1996.

1.
In her letter DG Quintin says that the Commission is considering extrapolating the results of the
investigation by the accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment to all ESF co-
funded projects from the period 1994 to 1996. Regulation (EEC) 448/2001 (2) of 2 March 2001 states,
however, that ‘in the case of extrapolation a representative sample of transactions with like characteristics
must be used’. Does the Commission consider that it is wise to extrapolate on the basis of a very limited
sample in terms of numbers?

2.
The report by the accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment covers
45 projects. In the case of 12 of these 45 projects there was no longer any project administration in place.
Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 stipulates that supporting documents for project expenditure must be kept and
be available to the Commission for a period of three years after the last payment. Can the Commission
indicate whether this requirement was satisfied in the case of the 12 projects concerned?

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 (1) does not apply to the 1994-1999

1.
programming period.

Although the Commission insisted on a sample covering at least 5 % of total expenditure and of the
number of projects, i.e. approximately 200 projects, the Dutch authorities conducted an investigation on a
sample of 45 projects.