WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Leader+.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU initiative, EU programme, Greece, project management, rural development

C 172 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

politically-motivated violence and asked the Government of Bangladesh to make all necessary efforts to
address this issue. Similar demarches were made in meetings of the Member States’ and the Commission’s
Delegation Heads of Mission with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Bangladesh printed media and domestic non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also voiced their
concern about the attacks and violence against minorities in the country, urging the Government of
Bangladesh to take action against the perpetrators. On 27 November 2001, the High Court, in response to
a petition filed by a rights organisation, ordered the Government of Bangladesh to investigate the incidents
and submit a report by 15 January 2002. It issued a notice to the government as to why it was not
undertaking to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks on minorities. Already on 24 November
2001, the High Court had ordered the Government of Bangladesh to explain why it had not taken steps to
stop post-election attacks and harassment of minorities.

Although the present situation still appears tense, reported violence against and intimidation of minorities
has decreased. It is also to be noted that the Government of Bangladesh has recently taken steps which
indicate a determination to stop any violence against minorities in Bangladesh and to bring the
perpetrators to justice. An inquiry committee headed by the Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister, has
been set up, arrests have been made including a notorious villain who was elected as BNP Member of
Parliament, and a legislative proposal for the establishment of an independent Human Rights Commission
has been brought on its legislative way.

In the light of these developments, the Commission instructed its Delegation in Dhaka to continue to
monitor closely the Human Rights situation in the country, to actively participate in all diplomatic
initiatives in close co-ordination with the Union Presidency representative and Member States’ diplomatic
missions in Bangladesh, and to raise this issue with the Government of Bangladesh as and when
appropriate.

(2002/C 172 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Leader+

On 4 December 2001, the Commission approved the Leader+ programme for Greece with a budget of
€ 392,6 million. Can the Commission provide details of the implementation of the previous Leader
programmes in Greece, comparing their results with those obtained in other Member States where the
corresponding programmes were carried out?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Briefly comparing the results and impact achieved in Greece under the Leader I programme, which was
implemented mainly during the period 1990-1993, with the 12 EU Member States as a whole shows that:

A of 215 local action groups (LAGs) in total, Structural Funds aid final beneficiaries set up 25 LAGs in

Greece (11,6 % of the total);

A of € 417 million in total committed and used from the Structural Funds, the Greek programme’s share
amounted to € 52 million (12,5 % of the total); it should be pointed out that, in terms of financial
implementation, Greece was among the top five Member States (along with Germany, France, Ireland
and Portugal) in which more than 60 % of LAGs attained over 95 % of their objectives within the
period stipulated;

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/89

A of 22 000 projects and operations in total, 1 730 (8 % of the total) were carried out in Greece; of
25 000 new full-time equivalent jobs in the 12 Member States, 1 990 (8 % of the total) were created in
Greece;

A over half the LAGs in Greece focused mainly on developing rural tourism, a marked trend in all the

regions of southern Europe.

The above bears out the view that, overall, implementation of Leader I in Greece produced satisfactory
results comparable to those in all the Member States and particularly close to those in the regions of
southern Europe. Greece applied the principles specific to Leader A regional approach, local partnership,
innovation, networking, decentralised
bottom-up method, multisectoral and integrated LAG plans,
financing A easily as well as other Member States.

For further information on the results and impact of Leader I, the Honourable Member may find it helpful
to consult the ex post evaluation report for the Community as a whole at http:/europa.eu.int/comm/
agriculture/eval/index_en.htm.

The Commission has received and is currently examining a number of national and regional Leader II
ex post evaluation reports, including that for Greece. Once it has received all the reports, the Commission
will publish an invitation to tender in order to select an external expert to conduct the ex post evaluation
of Leader II for the EU as a whole. In addition, the final reports on the programmes’ implementation are
expected towards the end of the first half of 2002, accompanying the final declarations of expenditure
which must be submitted to the Commission for financial closure of the programmes. It is therefore too
soon to draw any A even tentative A conclusions regarding the implementation, results and impact of
Leader II, either in Greece or in other Member States; and it is certainly too soon to make comparisons
between them.

At this stage, the Commission is merely able to confirm that for Leader II in Greece € 167,65 million from
the Structural Funds were committed in their entirety up to 31 December 1999 and that expenditure and
payments continued to be incurred until 31 December 2001. Greece must submit the final declaration of
expenditure and the final report on implementation of the programme during the first half of 2002. In
Greece, 56 local development organisations (49 LAGs and seven other collective agencies) have received
support under Leader II.

(2002/C 172 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3568/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: 1956 Hungarian uprising

Would the Commission indicate whether the issue of impunity after the 1956 uprisings to the present day
is a matter of concern in the pre-accession deliberations taking place between the EU and Hungary?

Is the Commission aware that the statutes of limitation in Hungary, effectively, procrastinated the bringing
to trial of the perpetrators involved in the 1956 uprisings, and enabled many of them to go unpunished in
Hungary?

Would the Commission agree that the length of sentence delivered in the Mosonmagyaróvár case, in June
of this year, in effect gave pardon to the accused, Mr Dudás, through invoking Act No 39 of 1990 on
General Amnesty?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

the pre-accession strategy,

In the framework of
the Commission is closely following the political
developments of candidate countries. In fact, in its Regular Reports it assesses on an annual basis whether
the political criteria for accession are met, as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June
1993. In line with these criteria, the candidate countries must have achieved stability of institutions