WRITTEN QUESTION P-0026/02 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Clarification regarding the answer to Written Question P-2886/01 on North-South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse.
Date: 2002-01-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: North-South relations, activity report, budget, cooperation policy, drug addiction, drug traffic, fight against crime

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/127

What type of research is financed? (i.e. management research, therapy research, cure research)

What is the level of funding,
(EAMDA)?

if any, for the European Alliance of Muscular Dystrophy Associations

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission has no data available on the level of funding in individual Member States for spinal
muscular atrophy (SMA), muscular dystrophy (MD/DMD) or neuromuscular diseases.

Three projects on muscular diseases, two concerning mainly diagnostic and therapeutic research and one
concerning research management, have been selected for funding within the ‘Quality of Life and
Management of Living Resources’ programme of
the 5th Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (RTD):

/ QLRT-1999-00870,

‘Genetic resolution of myopathies: European cluster’, project

funding: € 2,4

million;

/ QLG2-1999-00660, ‘A funtional genomics study of lysyl-tRNA synthesis as a target for the diagnosis
and treatment of microbial infections and mitochndrial myopathies’, project funding: € 1,4 million;

/ QLK3-2000-01038, ‘Disease insights from single cell signalling’, project funding: € 907,312.

Several such projects have been funded in the past, under the third and fourth Framework Programmes.
More detailed information on all projects can be found through search on the Cordis website http://
www.cordis.lu/en/home.html.

In addition, in 2000, DG Health and Consumer Protection, granted one recent (year 2000) project entitled
‘Muscle diseases for a prototype of rare and disabling disorders: creation of a European information
network’ (Project No 2000/RD:10003) with € 128,000. More detailed information on this project can be
found on the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/programmes/rare/proj1_en.pdf.

EAMDA did not receive any contribution from the Commission for the last three years.

(2002/C 172 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0026/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Clarification regarding the answer to Written Question P-2886/01 on North-South cooperation

schemes in the campaign against drug abuse

In its 1997 General Report the Commission maintained that in Regulation (EC) No 2046/97 (1) of
13 October 1997 the Council had provided a legal basis for budget line B7-6210 concerning North-South
cooperation for the campaign against drug abuse.

C 172 E/128

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Article 11(1) of the Regulation states ‘At the end of each budget year, the Commission shall present a
report to Parliament and the Council summarising the operations financed in the course of that year and
evaluating the implementation of this Regulation over that period. The summary shall in particular contain
information about those with whom contracts have been concluded’.

Article 12 of the Regulation envisaged ‘an overall assessment of operations financed by the Community
(…) together with suggestions regarding the future of this Regulation and, where necessary, proposals for
amending or terminating it’ by 24 October 2000, but the Commission / which claims to have launched
the assessment in 1999 and that it was actually started in January 2000 / had not received it by
20 December 2001 because of difficulties encountered by the chosen contractor, but that it should reach
the Commission by the end of the year.

In its answer of 21 December 2001 to Written Question P-2886/01 (2) the Commission said that the
budget line now has a legal basis.

Can the Commission say:

/ what contractors took part in the selection procedure, whether any and, if so, what assessments had
already been carried out within the European institutions, who the chosen contractor is, whether it
has been told that it has failed to fulfil the contract and, if not, why?

/ what the terms of the annual reports referred to in Article 11(1) are?

/ what legal basis budget heading B7-6210 has?

(1) OJ L 287, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 61.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

In accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2046/97 of 13 October 1997 on north-south
cooperation in the campaign against drugs and drug addiction (1), the Commission launched the procedure
for selecting and recruiting a consortium to conduct the assessment provided for by the Regulation. Ten
consortia responded, seven were shortlisted and six put in a bid. From a technical and financial point of
view the Sorgem Company (F) submitted the best bid and was therefore selected. The assessment got under
way in January 2000. The company had already been selected in the past for other invitations to tender
launched by the Commission.

After the phase 1 ‘Documentary analysis’ report was submitted in June 2000 (within the agreed time
limits), internal problems among the consortium partners led to long delays and the phase 2 ‘Evaluation in
situ’ report was not ready until July 2001. In these circumstances the Commission considered the option of
terminating the contract with the consortium and launching a new invitation to tender. However, in view
of the work already accomplished and the time needed to recruit a new firm, the Commission decided to
carry on with the same consortium. Nevertheless, despite a series of letters, including a registered letter and
several communications from the Commission, there were further delays in the presentation of the phase 3
report (‘Synthesis, conclusions and recommendations’). Following a final letter of formal notice from the
Commission, the consortium undertook to complete the assessment by the end of 2001.

Unfortunately, the Sorgem Company was unable to submit the phase 3 report.

Eventually, on 27 December 2001 the Commission received a letter from the consortium asking to be
released from its contractual obligations in respect of the dossier. The case is currently being examined to
see what steps should be taken vis-à-vis the contractor.

The Commission is also seeking an expert who can take over all the work that has already been done so
that the report containing the synthesis, conclusions and recommendations can be drafted as soon as
possible.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/129

The legal basis for budget heading B7-6310 remains Council Regulation (EC) No 2046/97 on north-south
cooperation in the campaign against drugs and drug addiction, which has no expiry date.

(1) OJ L 287, 21.10.1997.

(2002/C 172 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0028/02

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Comments by Commissioner Bolkestein on tax harmonisation

In a television interview on Sunday, 6 January 2002, Commissioner Bolkestein let fall the remark that he
saw little prospect of harmonisation of tax rates being achieved within the European Union. Mr Bolkestein
emphasised that he strongly advocated reducing differences in excise duties and VAT rates to a minimum.
However, he anticipated that attempts to do so would fail in the face of the requirement for decisions to
be taken unanimously. With 15 Member States, it would be difficult to reach agreement; with perhaps
25 Member States he expected that it would be almost impossible.

The Commissioner is perhaps failing to fully recognise the possibilities offered by the instrument of
enhanced cooperation. This solution undeniably has its weak points. For example, it will be a less attractive
alternative for Member States taking part, given the apparent freedom which the arrangements would
mean for countries not taking part. However, provided that the group not included in the arrangements is
very small, such a solution can nonetheless be expected to bring satisfactory results, an argument which is
being put forward by a number of Member States in support of using the instrument of enhanced
cooperation for decisions on the eco tax.

The Commission:

/ Has it finally abandoned its plan to reduce the various differences in taxes between EU Member States

to a minimum in the interests of making the operation of the internal market more effective?

/ Has it considered opting to pursue the alternative approach whereby decisions would be taken using
the instrument of enhanced cooperation by a group of Member States willing to take the lead (as
many have advocated in connection with the introduction of the eco tax)? If not, why not?

/ Does it have other alternatives for reaching a decision on reducing tax differences between European

Member States to a minimum, and, if so, what are those alternatives?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission’s Communication, ‘Tax Policy in the European Union / Priorities for the years ahead’ (1),
adopted 28 May 2001, sets out its policy with respect to the areas where further tax harmonisation is
necessary, and also on the use of enhanced cooperation and non-legislative instruments as a means of
achieving Community tax policy objectives.

With regard to enhanced cooperation, the Communication states the following:

The possibilities introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and developed by the Nice Treaty for closer co-
operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States could also be envisaged in certain cases.
In particular, this could be used in tax policy areas where, even in the long term, decisions in the
Council are taken by unanimity. These must be self-contained policy areas so that Member States
cannot pick and choose between policies as best suits them. The decision at Nice will enable the
Commission to propose to the Council that as small a group as eight Member States may co-operate