WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/01 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Structural Funds: Objective 2 regions in Belgium 1994-1999.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Structural Funds, action programme, carry-over of appropriations, regional aid

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/69

allocation by Member State for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Council Regulation
(EC) No 1493/1999 (1), the average aid per hectare received by Portugal and Spain is lower than that for
the other Member States. Although it
the producing
Member States, it should be pointed out that this mathematical calculation by itself cannot be used to
compare the characteristics of the various forms of winegrowing existing in Europe.

is about 8 % lower than the average for all

The Community contribution is directly linked to the actual restructuring and conversion costs, which of
course vary greatly from one winegrowing area to another depending on vineyard type, vine training
method, density, slope, etc.
the financial allocation decided by the
Commission for the first marketing year when the rules applied (2000/2001) was made in consultation
with the Member States on the basis of estimates. All the allocation factors and criteria stipulated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2) were taken
into account.

In the absence of precise data,

Those factors can be summarised as follows:

0 proportion of the Community winegrowing area in the Member State concerned;

0 estimated average restructuring costs in the various winegrowing areas;

0 proportion of

the winegrowing area to be restructured located respectively within and outside

Objective 1 regions;

0 proportion of the winegrowing area to be restructured which could receive aid for loss of income

during the period when the area is not yet in production.

The amounts thus allocated enabled many more hectares than forecast to be completed, which proves that
the average estimated aid is appropriate.

For the second marketing year (2001/2002), the Commission had at its disposal detailed statements from
the Member States describing specific needs based on the efforts to be made in each winegrowing area. A
new criterion 0 with a 20 % weighting 0 was added to the criteria used for the previous marketing year,
to take into account the applications submitted by Member States. In this connection it should be pointed
out that the applications (€ 612 million) exceeded budgetary resources (€ 422 million).

In subsequent marketing years the Member States, which are responsible for implementing restructuring
plans, will of course benefit from increased experience in applying the new rules. The Commission will
take into account any proposals which Member States may present to it based on that experience with the
aim of adjusting allocations according to actual needs in future marketing years.

(1) OJ L 233, 31.8.2001.
(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/01

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Structural Funds: Objective 2 regions in Belgium 1994-1999

In the 1994-1999 programming period, the Verviers-Liège region was recognised as an Objective 2 region
eligible for aid.

During that period, which projects (please give a detailed list of the individual projects) were

1.
approved and carried out within the relevant deadlines?

2. Which projects encountered problems with regard to the criteria laid down in the SPD and to the
committed expenditure?

C 147 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

3. Were any applications submitted for the carrying-over of appropriations to the next programming
period? If so, what is the total amount of the appropriations carried over?

4.

For how long may such carried-over appropriations be drawn down?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

In order
information from the Walloon authorities, who are responsible for managing this programme:

the Honourable Member’s question,

the Commission obtained the following

to answer

1. The list of projects approved by the Monitoring Committee for Objective 2 programmes in Liège in
the 1994-1996 and 1997-1999 programming periods is being sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

2.

Except for the ‘Ensemble muséal d’art et d’histoire du pays de Liège’ (E-Mahl museum) project, which
has been suspended following an appeal against the building permit to the Belgian Council of State,
no project has encountered problems of the sort mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question.

3. The authorities of the Walloon Region have made no requests to extend this programme into the
period 1997-1999. A request was made for partial closure of the 1994-1999 programme, with the
exception of the project referred to in point 2.

4.

If the suspension on the project referred to in point 2 is lifted, the period during which it will remain
eligible for Community part-financing will be determined at that time.

(2002/C 147 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2971/01

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Reduced VAT for amusement parks, animal and similar cultural facilities

Whereas in Article 12 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 (Sixth VAT Directive), as
modified by Council Directive 92/77/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 (approximation of VAT rates), lays down
that from 1 January 1993, Member States may apply one or two reduced rates. These reduced rates may
not be lower than 5 %, and shall apply only to supplies of categories of goods and services specified in
Annex H,

Whereas category 7 of Annex H refers to ‘admissions to […] amusement parks, […] zoos, […] and similar
cultural events and facilities’, although such activities are not defined in the Sixth VAT Directive,

Whereas the activities of aquatic, botanic, animal and mechanical amusement parks demand that they
come under the activities recognised in category 7 of Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive and, therefore,
may benefit from the application of the reduced VAT rates to admission charges to their facilities, in
implementation,
inter alia, of the principles of VAT uniformity, the inherent fiscal neutrality of the
common VAT system and the elimination of distortions of competition in the single market,