WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Use of schemes to get round rules on the public-sector cofinancing required for the allocation of ESF monies in Limburg province, Netherlands.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Social Fund, Limburg, aid system, financial control, fraud, management, use of aid

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/123

In light of the events, the co-operation was extended to include:

(cid:24) The pooling of expertise in the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical fields (NBC experts), available

24 hours a day to assist any country that requests help;

(cid:24) Enhanced co-operation on information-sharing concerning antidotes, vaccines, antibiotics, and access

to hospital treatment for any victims of such attacks;

(cid:24) Creation of a system of immediate and systematic exchange of information relating to accidents or

threats of terrorist attack;

(cid:24) Creation of a Civil Protection monitoring and information centre in the Commission.

the European Council

At
the Heads of State and Government called on the European
Commission and the Council to organise an urgent and co-ordinated program to respond to the threat of
bio-terrorism.

in Ghent,

In response to the request by EU Heads of State and Government, the European Commission approved on
28 November a Communication setting out the action it has taken to mobilise its resources, expertise and
networks in the area of civil protection to respond to terrorist threats.

The Commission proposed to appoint a European Co-ordinator for Civil Protection.

Moreover, it has been decided to organise a workshop mid December under the Belgian Presidency; the
latter will be entrusted with setting up a short, medium and long term working programme.

On the question raised by the Honourable Member on the exchange of information dealing with irregular
or anomalous situations in the chemical industry, it would be discussed during this workshop.

In the field of public health there is already in place a basis at Community level on which one can build up
an effective mechanism for an early warning and response system for the prevention and control of
communicable diseases, also related to terrorist attacks. Work on the Community communicable disease
network (1) has been under development and is now being accelerated urgently with the necessary
assistance of Member States. Following consultation of representatives of Union Health Ministers, the
Commission proposed at the Health Council of 15 November 2001, to complement the current two
strands of the network, tracking diseases and rapid alert, by a third strand: emergency preparedness. The
emergency coordination mechanism will
in particular address progress of preparedness planning and
prepare decision making mechanisms for emergency situations. The aim is to target a wider range of
emerging threats and to be able to deliver authoritative expert analysis rapidly. By consequence,
Community response will be built on resources existing in the Member States and at Community level
and directed at gaining real added value through more effective and stronger coordination.

(1) Parliament and Council Decision No 2119/98/EC, OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, Commission Decision 2000/57/EC, OJ L 21,

26.1.2000 and Commission Decision 2000/96/EC, OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.

(2002/C 134 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Use of schemes to get round rules on the public-sector cofinancing required for the allocation of

ESF monies in Limburg province, Netherlands

Is the Commission aware that the now bankrupt firm Abb MCG in Limburg province, Netherlands,
1.
used a special scheme in order to meet the requirement for public-sector cofinancing in the case of ESF 4
projects? The scheme consisted in asking businesses or organisations in various sectors to make loans (and
hence not binding contributions) to a training and development fund; this money, passing for public-sector
cofinancing, was then paid back to the firm, supplemented with ESF 4 funding, to enable it to implement
training projects.

C 134 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Is it also aware that the scheme referred to above is being used elsewhere? Has it conducted specific
2.
investigations into this matter? Can it state how often such schemes have been used in the last 10 years,
and in which Member States?

Does it consider such schemes to be compatible with the relevant rules? If not, what action is it
3.
taking against those who were involved in them, either in project execution, including specifically Abb, or
in commissioning projects, including specifically the Netherlands province of Limburg?

Is it aware that Abb was, on various occasions, also part of European consortia of organisations from
4.
different Member States which organised training projects, including the Business Continuity Programme
(via DG 17), and a number of projects under the Leonardo programme, for some of which it was project
manager for the consortia concerned?

Can the Commission confirm information according to which, in the case of these projects, very

5.
high travel and subsistence costs and the cost of parties and the like were put down as project costs?

Does it agree that,

6.
inquiries need to be made to
ascertain whether the European consortia projects in which Abb was a partner appear to involve fraud,
corruption, dubious schemes involving bogus foundations or close connections with auditors? If so, is it
prepared to order investigations into this matter and to keep Parliament informed of their findings?

in view of such practices in the Netherlands,

7. What is it doing to ensure that practices of this sort do not continue and do not recur in the
Netherlands or any other Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

1. to 3.
The Commission would like to refer to its earlier reply to the Honourable Member’s written
question E-2451/01 (1), which dealt with the same case. The construction was probably also used in other
projects of the Dutch Objective 4 programme. The Commission has not carried out a specific investigation
into this matter in the Netherlands or in other Member States. Verification of expenditure by the
Commission in relation to Objective 4 has so far not revealed any irregularities.

4. to 6.
The allegations are serious and that is why the Dutch authorities, i. e. the Agency of the Ministry
of Social Affairs and Employment in charge of European Social Fund (ESF) has, at its own initiative, started
an investigation into the Abb case. The Commission follows the outcome of this investigation with great
interest and only if the Commission is not satisfied with how the Dutch authorities deal with this case it
may decide to launch its own investigation.

Concerning the Business Continuity Programme, Abb-ESCET, part of the Abb Management Consulting
Group, was one of the several partners of the project but not the project leader. The project is now
finished but the verification of the financial statement of the project is not yet completed. As far as the
Leonardo da Vinci programme is concerned, the Commission has not financed any projects whatsoever in
which Abb MCG is project promoter. A project proposal by Abb MCG in the year 2000 had initially been
selected, but due to serious doubts about the firm in question, the Dutch Leonardo da Vinci national
agency decided not to sign a contract with this promoter.

The current Structural Funds regulation gives the Commission the responsibility of supervising the
7.
control efforts of the Member States. The Member States are obliged to make random controls of at least
5 % of the total eligible expenditure before the closure of any programme (2). All irregularities found have
to be reported to the Commission. Moreover, any irregularity that comes discretely to the attention of the
Commission will also be investigated.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 87.
(2) Article 10 of Commission Regulation 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules

the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for
assistance granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.

for