WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/01 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: EU initiative, European Social Fund, Netherlands, application of EU law, financial control, management, report, use of aid

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/81

In his report, the accountant of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment concludes that an extension
of this investigation would require a disproportionate investment of time, and recommends that no further
investigation into 1994-1996 should be undertaken and that the findings of this report should be used for
reaching an agreement with the Commission on the amount to be reimbursed.

In view of these conclusions, the Commission based its action on the information available.

2.
Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 (2) states that ‘for a
period of three years following the last payment in respect of any operation, the responsible body or
authorities shall keep available for the Commission all the supporting documents regarding expenditure
and checks on the operation’. This period is still running for the European Social Fund (ESF) programmes
1994-1999. The internal accounting department of the Ministry has established that 12 projects did not
meet this criterion.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance
granted under the Structural Funds.

(2) 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, p.1),
lastly amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3193/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ L 337,
24.12.1994).

(2002/C 115 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/01

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.

For 33 of the 45 projects selected an investigation has been carried out on the basis of the project
1.
administration that is still
in place. In the case of seven projects, owing to the absence of a project
administration, a review has been conducted on the basis of accountants’ reports. Of these seven projects,
in five cases the ESF subsidy was qualified as ‘regular’, and in 2 cases as ‘uncertain’. Nonetheless, all seven
projects were taken as being in the category ‘uncertain/irregular’ by extrapolation. As a result, the
adjustment proposed by the Commission amounts to 41 % instead of 25 %. Does the Commission not
consider that in cases where the accountants’ reports indicate a positive outcome the project should be
given the benefit of the doubt, and should,
in any case, not be considered negative as a result of
extrapolation?

2.
Up until the spring of 1997 there was uncertainty regarding the exact rules relating to the allocation
of ESF resources. On 11 March 1996 the Ecofin Council asked the Commission to eliminate all sources of
uncertainty regarding the eligibility of expenditure so as to guarantee that the best possible use be made of
Community resources,
in accordance with the regulations in force. On the basis of that request, the
Commission adopted Decision 97/320/EC (2) in respect of the Netherlands. Article 1(2) of that decision says
that ‘to the extent that the provisions of the Annex impose new or complementary charges or conditions
on Member States or beneficiaries, they shall apply only to investments, operations, measures and projects
comprising part of the forms of assistance mentioned in the first paragraph and selected after 1 May
1997’. Can the Commission indicate whether the regularity of expenditure relating to the 45 projects
selected has been assessed in the light of the provisions of Article 1(2)?

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 146, 5.6.1997, p. 7.

C 115 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

In 1997,

the Netherlands authorities decided,

1.
to replace
declarations certified by external accountants with controls carried out by the Control Department of
Arbeidsvoorziening. The reason for this transfer was that earlier controls carried out by the Commission
had revealed that these accountants’ declarations were of no use with respect to the actual compliance of
the projects with the European Social Fund (ESF) rules. The same declarations that were found to be of no
use for the ESF in 1996 can of course not be used as evidence for compliance with ESF rules five years
later.

in agreement with the Commission,

Moreover, according to the report of the accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Employment, also all projects qualified as ‘irregular’ had received a positive accountants’ declaration.

2.
The accounting department of the Netherlands Ministry conducted the control of the 45 projects, in
order to verify the legitimacy and the correctness of their declarations. The Commission is convinced that
this investigation was based on the regulations and decisions in force at the time that the projects were
carried out.

(2002/C 115 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2425/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Subject: Categories of residents that are difficult to insure because of exclusion clauses applied by sickness

insurance schemes

Since 1998 private sickness insurance schemes in the Netherlands have been required to provide cover for
all applicants. This means that persons living in the Netherlands must be accepted on the basis of a
standard package, subject to certain conditions.

Since 1971 workers have been covered by a European Regulation under which those who migrate to other
Member States are entitled to access to a sickness insurance scheme on the same terms as residents of the
country concerned (Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 (1)).

There are no such rules for individuals who go and live in another Member States and have to rely on a
private sickness insurance scheme. Consequently, they often find themselves subject to exclusion clauses
whereby,
for example, the insurers exclude future risks on the basis of medical history. Exclusions
frequently involve risks that citizens cannot afford because of extremely expensive new treatments.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that any citizen who settles in another Member State of the
European Union is in principle entitled to medical care of an acceptable minimum level and that there
should be no question of exclusion clauses?

How many people fall into the category that is at risk of being partially uninsured owing to the

3.
absence of a duty on private insurers to provide cover?

Does the Commission have an overview of the situation in different European countries? If not, is

4.
prepared to draw up an inventory? If so, will it make this information available?

Is the Commission drafting proposals to ensure that no group of residents of the Member States of
irrespective of income, occupation or nationality, can in future be refused standard sickness

5.
the EU,
insurance? If not, why is the Commission postponing or refraining from introducing such measures?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.