WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/02 by Herman Vermeer (ELDR), Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR)and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Report by the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau on the effectiveness of the European Union's cohesion policy.
Date: 2002-05-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU regional policy, European Commission, Netherlands, economic and social cohesion, less-favoured region, management audit, powers of the institutions (EU), regional aid, supervisory power

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/127

The behaviour of the Greek military led to a number of irregularities in their trial.

The prosecution’s case was based on an anonymous document from the security services and was
supported in court by a middle-ranking Greek Air Force officer. He refused however to answer any
pertinent cross-examination points by the defence on the grounds that he did not know or that they were
matters of national security. Moreover all the oral and written evidence given by three experts was rejected
in favour of this anonymous document.

Will the Council agree that the Greek security officers are overreacting by pushing forward with this case
based on an anonymous document?

While,
in the light of principles of democracy and the Rule of Law, the Greek Government cannot
intervene in a court case, isn’t it worrying for the Council that, in the light of the same principles, the
government of a Member State is not able to control the actions of their own military and security
officers?

Will the Council request information about this from the Member State concerned?

Doesn’t the Council believe that a proper programme with a defined goal for ensuring that all EU states
bring their justice systems up to the standard of the European Convention of Human Rights is necessary
and needs to be commenced immediately?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that each Member State is responsible for the respect
for and and safeguard of fundamental human rights, including the right of any person to a fair trial.

The Union’s responsibility in this case, as set out in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, concerns
situations where the Union acts in the exercise of its competence.

Launching investigations into a Member State of the kind suggested by the Honourable Member does not
fall within the competence of the Council.

(2002/C 309 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR), Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR)
and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Report by the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau on the effectiveness of the European Union’s

cohesion policy

Has the Commission received a copy of a study drawn up by the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau
(CPB) which demonstrates a lack of effectiveness in the way in which the EU’s cohesion policy is being
implemented? A large proportion of the subsidies benefits the comparatively wealthy regions which do not
need the money. It is claimed that a policy change would help toward the attainment of an annual
economic growth rate of 0,5 % in the poorest regions. The report also refers to the need for policy reform
in connection with the accession of new Member States.

What measures and initiatives does the Commission have in mind with a view to improving the general
effectiveness of the cohesion policy? If the Commission has decided not to take any measures, can it justify
its decision?

Is the Commission aware of the recommendations set out in the CPB report with a view to improving the
policy’s effectiveness, i.e. either increasing Commission control over the funds or allowing the Member
States themselves to determine the projects to which they allocate the funds?

C 309 E/128

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Does the Commission intend to follow the CPB’s recommendations? Can it indicate which of the two
recommendations it favours? If it does not select the first option, does that mean that the Commission
believes that it has adequate control over the cohesion policy?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The concentration of the resources available on the most affected areas and problems is a basic principle of
the Structural Funds. Accordingly, some two-thirds of the resources are available concentrated on just 22 %
of population in the regions eligible under Objective 1. Concentration was reinforced for the current
period, 2000-2006, compared to the previous period, 1994-1999, and the population eligible under all of
the regional objectives of the Structural Funds has been reduced from 49,8 % to 41,3 %.

With regard to the matter of the control of the Structural Funds, the key principles in this respect are those
of partnership between the Commission and the authorities in the Member States and decentralisation of
responsibilities. In the management of the current generation of regional development programmes, this
has meant the selection of individual projects is a responsibility that is decentralised to the Member States,
once the broad strategic priorities of
the programmes have been agreed in partnership with the
Commission.

The Commission is aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Members. With the help of
independent experts it has studied the impact of structural interventions for the 2000-2006 period, using
an input-output model, which suggests a clear positive macro-economic impact of the Community
cohesion policy. Annual average growth increases of 0,4 % are estimated for Greece and Portugal over this
period, while they are 0,3 % and 0,2 % respectively for the regions of the Mezzogiorno and the Germany’s
new Länder. So, in general, the Commission does not share the conclusions that emerge from the analysis
in the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau (CPB) report.

The Commission is constantly seeking to improve the efficiency of cohesion policy instruments, without
compromising the financial control of expenditure, for which it remains responsible. A mid-term review of
Structural Funds programmes is foreseen by the end of 2003, which will provide an occasion to assess
how far objectives have been achieved half-way through the current programming period. Moreover, a
performance reserve has been introduced for the Structural Funds, whereby 4 % of allocations are reserved
in order to be disbursed depending upon performance. The objective is to ensure that actions genuinely
add value, which is assessed both ex-ante and ex-post. Finally, simplification of programming and
implementation continues to be at the forefront of the Commission’s agenda.

Looking to the future beyond the end of the current programmes in 2006, the Commission has already
begun its reflection on the reform of Cohesion policy. Concrete proposals for reform will be presented in
the third Cohesion report at the end of 2003. The second cohesion report adopted in January 2001,
launched a wide-ranging debate on the future of cohesion policy.

(2002/C 309 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/02

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Council

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Association agreement with Algeria

Negotiations are currently in progress on an association agreement between the European Union and
Algeria. The agreement contains a clause which states that the basis for the agreement will be respect for
human rights and democratic principles. Unfortunately, reports show that there is systematic violation of
human rights in Algeria and that the government of the country often fails to investigate such serious
crimes. Furthermore, Algeria has refused access to UN human rights experts and special rapporteurs.