WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Differences of interpretation regarding incorrect use and unforeseen claim for repayment of Dutch ESF funds.
Date: 2001-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Regulation, European Social Fund, Netherlands, competence of the Member States, financial control, management, use of aid

C 115 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission was informed that the fire in the Cazorla national park affected 836 ha, mainly artificially
reforested areas, planted with Pinus Pinaster. The area of the park with the highest ecological value was
not affected.

The responsibility for financing nature conservation and nature reserves lies with Member States, either
through national or local authorities. Financing nature reserves requires allocation of sufficient resources.
The Commission does not have comprehensive information on national budgets allocated for natural
reserves in each Member State and thus cannot judge if the resources made available are adequate for the
management of these areas. However, under the Habitats Directive there is a need to address the financial
requirements of areas included in the Natura 2000 network and currently the Commission is working on
this issue.

The Commission believes that responsibility for the management of the reserves of a Member State lies
with the State, which is responsible both for management decisions and their implementation. The
Commission recognises the importance of these areas for the Community and has therefore developed
policies and instruments for their protection. Sites of Community Importance are being protected Union-
wide through the Natura 2000 network, and the Commission provides substantial
funding for the
management of these areas. However, the national or local authorities are responsible for administering
these areas and the funding they receive from different sources (LIFE, Structural Funds, etc.).

The Community is not responsible for implementing preventive measures to reduce the number of forest
fires and the damage they cause. However, as far as it can, the Commission is trying to bring together the
national operational centres for forest fire fighting to encourage not only the exchange of experience with
regard to prevention, but also practical cooperation. Experience has shown that such cooperation, in the
form of mutual assistance and technical advice, is important and produces good results. However, forest
fire experts believe that monitoring operations on the ground, however well managed, cannot prevent
people from starting fires deliberately.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(2002/C 115 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Differences of interpretation regarding incorrect use and unforeseen claim for repayment of Dutch

ESF funds

1.
In the light of the differences of opinion between the Netherlands Government and the Commission
concerning the claim for repayment of NLG 447 million (more than € 200 million) in subsidies paid in the
Netherlands from the European Social Fund in 1994-1996, can the Commission say whether the rules on
the use of ESF funds should be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which receives them bears
ultimate responsibility for monitoring and ensuring their correct use?

2.
If ultimate responsibility lies with the government of the Member State concerned, does this mean
that the government is immune from claims for repayment if it considers the funds to have been used in
accordance with the rules, or does it always remain possible for the Commission to retrospectively resume
ultimate responsibility and on this basis, years later, demand repayment of money which the government
concerned considers to have been spent in good faith?

How can it be ensured that agreement is reached between the Commission and the government of
3.
the Member State concerned at the earliest possible stage, and not later than one year after the end of the
financial year in which the expenditure has been incurred, that ESF funds have been spent correctly, so as
to avoid the possibility that the Commission may later demand repayment of money which the Member
State concerned or its subordinate bodies have already definitively assessed as having been spent correctly
and in accordance with the rules?

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/87

Bearing in mind that Member States often regard funds which they receive from the EU as being
4.
available for use at their discretion within the sector to which they are allocated, will the Commission
define more clearly the respective responsibilities for such funds, making it absolutely clear to all parties
concerned in advance whether the funds are available for uses for which the Member State concerned
bears ultimate responsibility or whether they are earmarked exclusively for a use which involves the
European Union independently monitoring how the funds are used and accounted for because it bears
ultimate responsibility itself?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

According to article 23, section 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) the Member State is, in

1.
the first instance, responsible for the correct use of the Structural Funds.

2.
The Commission, with its ultimate responsibility, has always the possibility to go back to the
Member State when evidence arises which challenges the proper use of the money. If this is the case a
financial correction has to be made which can lead to a repayment.

3.
The Commission must be able to reclaim money during and after the end of the programming
period if evidence arises that challenges the proper use of money. For the period 2000-2006 the payment
system has changed substantially. There are no longer advances from the Commission to Member States
except for a 7 % lump sum paid at the beginning of the period. The Commission reimburses only real costs
once they have been incurred and certified by the Member State. This new set of rules should avoid any
excessive repayments.

4.
The Structural Funds Regulation (2), discussed and adopted by the Member States, is clear about the
responsibilities of the Member State and the Commission. The amount of money granted under the
Structural Funds Regulation is exclusively earmarked for the purposes laid down in the Structural Funds
regulations and the Programming Documents.

(1) 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.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 115 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2451/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Method of ascertaining and amount of claim for repayment of subsidies for European Social Fund

projects in the Netherlands in 1994-1996

It is extremely unclear how the claim for repayment of NLG 447 million in European Social Fund subsidies
misused by the Netherlands was arrived at.

Can the Commission confirm that Council Regulation No 4253/88 (1) of 19 December 1988 laying
1.
down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 (2) was the basis for determining the above
claim for repayment?

Article 24 of

2.
this Regulation mentions ‘a suitable examination’ by the Commission: can the
Commission give a complete overview of the checks made under its responsibility on ESF subsidies in
1994-1996 and of the findings and conclusions? Can the Commission provide a similar overview for the
period up to the beginning of 1999?