WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/02 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Operational shortcomings of the Community Support Framework Administrative Authority in Greece.
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU control, European Commission, Greece, management, project management

C 229 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0296/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva

The fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights, which is to be held in Geneva from
18 March to 26 April 2002, is the most important event in the field of human rights during the Spanish
Presidency in the first six months of this year.

What role will the Spanish Presidency play, and what will its approach be in this extremely important
international forum under the United Nations umbrella?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The EU, represented by the Presidency, will be a key player at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission
on Human Rights (CHR). The EU has traditionally been behind nearly a third of all the Resolutions
adopted. It takes the floor frequently and participates actively in the numerous negotiations conducted on
third-country initiatives.

The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the CHR on behalf of the EU at the opening of the
session and will set out the EU’s policy and priorities on human rights.

The Presidency, on behalf of the EU, will present initiatives for resolutions on certain countries or
territories where the human rights situation gives cause for concern. The list of those countries and
territories is not yet complete but is very likely to resemble that for CHR 57.

The EU will also present two important thematic resolutions, which met with remarkable success at the
57th CHR: a resolution on the rights of the child (prepared with Grulac) and a resolution against the death
penalty.

As it has done in the past, the Presidency, on behalf of the EU, will also take the initiative in drawing up
consensus declarations by the Chairwoman of the CHR on given countries.

The Presidency favours dialogue with all delegations and all regional groups, while at the same time urging
EU Member States to remain united in their positions. The Presidency is also committed to overcoming the
difficulties arising from the fact that the United States is not a member of the CHR.

(2002/C 229 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Operational shortcomings of the Community Support Framework Administrative Authority in

Greece

In its reply of 18 January 2002 to my Written Question (E-3377/01) (1) concerning the CSF Administrative
Authority, the Commission indicated that it was, generally speaking, satisfied with the initial results. One
week later the Greek press published a communication from the Directorate-General for Regional Policy
dated 4 October 2001 to the Greek authorities to the effect that the CSF Administrative Authority had not
in fact been formally established and that CSF coordination was still taking place on an ad hoc basis. The
communication also pointed to shortcomings regarding the transparency of procedures for the assessment
of projects submitted for funding, the inoperability of the integrated information system, the absence of
specified guidelines and lists for the monitoring of projects and shortcomings regarding instructions issued
to the administrative authorities regarding communications.

What is, in the final analysis, the Commission’s opinion regarding the operation of the CSF Administrative
Authority in Greece?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 162.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/71

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The letter that appeared in the Greek press on 26 January 2002, was a letter sent on 4 October 2001 from
the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO) to the
Greek authorities, via the Greek permanent representation in Brussels, informing the Greek government of
the outcome of an inquiry carried out in Greece from 11 to 15 June 2001 concerning the management
and control system put in place under the Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006
programming period.

When the Commission, on 18 January 2002, indicated in its reply to Written Question E-3377/01 asked
by the Honourable Member (1) that it was generally satisfied with the initial results, it took account of the
progress made by the Greek authorities in establishing the managerial and organisational structures
necessary to implement the programmes and also of the follow-up the Greek authorities had given in the
meantime to the conclusions and recommendations of DG REGIO’s audit mission in Greece from 11 to
15 June 2001.

At this stage it would be premature for the Commission to conclude on the quality of the systems put in
place by any Member State. In parallel with the system audits in Member States, the Commission is
carrying out desk audits of all programmes on the basis of the system descriptions sent by Member States.
The results of these analyses coupled with audit findings on the ground and the subsequent dialogue with
CSF A and programme authorities should further help eliminate the flaws in the systems. Reviews of the
operation of the systems will be undertaken by the Commission on a regular basis and in co-operation
with the Member State throughout the 2000-2006 programming period.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 162.

(2002/C 229 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Environmental directives and outermost regions

The considerable deterioration of the world’s natural heritage is being accompanied by an alarming
impoverishment of biodiversity. Despite our
the irreversible
disappearance of certain species of flora and fauna is in danger of compromising economic development
in certain countries and also medical research.

responsibility to future generations,

The outlying areas of certain Member States are of considerable value to the European Union in terms of
biodiversity and natural resources.

However, the Community environmental directives concerning habitats, birds and the ‘Life’ programmes
do not apply to these territories.

How can the Council explain and justify this legal discrepancy within the Community which is seriously
undermining the natural heritage in these areas, making it impossible to ensure the conservation of
biodiversity in the European Union Member States as a whole?

Is it possible for a Member State to obstruct Community legislation by failing to implement European
directives without undermining the spirit of cohesion in the Community, creating legal precedents and
detracting from the credibility of action taken by the Council and indeed its very purpose?

Will the Council examine the natural heritage of outlying areas in preparation for the implementation of a
Community policy based on coherent objectives in this respect?