WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance.
Date: 2002-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, Greece, Structural Funds, project evaluation, project management, public works, sanction (EU)

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/3

Cheques issued in one country of the euro zone and cashed in another are still subject to the same bank
charges; withdrawal of cash or visa card payments in a country other than that of issue are charged for;
even international transfers between accounts are still subject to significant bank charges, which used to be
justified in the past in terms of exchange rate operations which no longer take place. These abuses are an
affront to the principle of freedom of movement of capital and services provided for in the Treaty of
Rome, and to the single financial market, whose establishment was so trumpeted by the Treaty of
Maastricht.

They completely nullify the main advantage claimed by the backers of the single currency, namely the
disappearance of exchange rate charges.

Is the Commission going to put an end to these manifest affronts to the freedom of movement of capital
services and to the principle of a single financial market?

Does the fact that bank charges remain as high as ever, despite the fact that they are no longer subject to
exchange rate fluctuations, not constitute an abuse?

Does the fact that this abuse is standard practice not point to illegal understandings between various of the
major players within the European banking system?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission’s interest in the cost of cross-border transactions goes back more than ten years. Its aim
is to create a single payments area within which there will be no difference between a domestic payment
and a cross-border payment. It was with this in mind that in July 2001 the Commission presented a
proposal for a regulation that stipulated among other things that charges for cross-border payments in
euros should be identical to charges levied on euro transactions within the country of origin.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros (1) was adopted
on 19 December 2001 and some of its provisions entered into force on 31 December 2001. Where
denominated in euros, charges for cash withdrawals at automated teller machines and for using payment
cards must be identical in the case of domestic and cross-border transactions as of 1 July 2002. Until that
date, banks and credit card companies may retain a different price structure for cross-border payments in
euros.

The same principle of equality of charges between a strictly domestic payment and a cross-border payment
in euros will apply to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

However, this principle will not apply to cheques (see here the Commission’s reply to Written Question
E-3681/01 by Mrs Banotti (2)).

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
(2) See page 2.

(2003/C 161 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in
incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by
Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies,

C 161 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Commission officials have been noted, all of which have had disastrous results in terms of the economy,
natural resources and the environment. Typical examples are the Egnatia Highway, the sewage treatment
plant at Ermioni, the hydroelectric plant at Ilariona on the River Aliakmonas, the Smokoovo dam, the
tunnels at Mouzaki and Pyli Trikalon, the reservoirs on Kalymnos and Lipsi, the forest village at Xanthi and
the dams in Aitolo-Akarnia and Parthenio, Leros. Reports frequently appear in the Greek press concerning
these projects (e.g. To Vima of 17 February 2002).

Given that management and monitoring have not been carried out in the optimal manner, will the
Commission say:

1. what penalties will be imposed on those responsible and the Community officials who carried out the
relevant checks in view of the large sums invested in projects and constructions which will never
come into operation even though they are finished, such as the Goura bridge and the Metsovo tunnel,
and

2. what measures it has taken or proposes to take in response to the failure to complete the above

projects and the lack of clarity concerning their cost and the timetable for delivery?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Honourable Member will be aware that the responsibilities of Member States and of the Commission
for the sound management of interventions co-financed by the European Structural Funds are defined by
the legislation of the Union governing these funds.

This legislation provides that all expenditure declared by a Member State to the Commission for the
closure and the final payment concerning an intervention of the programming period 1994-1999,
is
linked with projects and actions which had been completed and were operational by the end 2001 at the
latest. In cases where work for specific projects is still in progress at that date, the Member State is required
to present to the Commission its undertaking that works will be completed and the projects concerned will
become operational within a reasonable delay.

Abandoned projects, or those which have been completed but are not operational, should be excluded
from the final list of projects co-financed, submitted by the Member State to the Commission for the
closure of interventions of the programming period 1994-1999. If they have been included provisionally
in earlier lists, they should be withdrawn from this final list submitted to the Commission.

As regards the Cohesion Fund for the programming period 1994-1999, Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of
16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1), provides that the final payment is made, provided that a
project or a stage of project is complete and operational. If that is not the case, the Commission can
proceed to recover earlier payments as necessary.

It is the responsibility of the Member State to give a reliable assurance to the Commission that the above
mentioned conditions are met, when they present the final payment request relating to the closure of
Structural Funds interventions and Cohesion Fund projects. The Commission carries out checks of a
representative sample of projects and actions included in the final report or linked to the final payment
request made by Member State.

The Commission does not consider that there have been insufficient controls. The control of individual
projects co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund is first and foremost the responsibility
of the Member State. The regulations in force require the Commission to make a sample controls of
individual projects.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.