WRITTEN QUESTION E-2423/01 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 Social Fund, Netherlands, exchange of information, financial control, management, report, use of aid

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.

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.