WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation of the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF) in Greece.
Date: 2002-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Community support framework, Greece, financial management, management audit, operational programme, project management, transport infrastructure

C 28 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/02

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: State aid to agriculture

I thank the Commission for its answer to question P-0744/02 (1). Once it has concluded its deliberations
concerning the possible revocation of
the
Commission inform me of the outcome of those deliberations, the background to that outcome and the
basis in the Treaties for its decision?

the Council’s decision on the destruction of wine, will

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 210.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

The Commission decided on 9 April not to ask the Court of Justice to quash the Council’s decisions of
28 February 2002 on behalf of French and Italian winegrowers.

The Commission will continue to voice its disapproval of such Council decisions. But after analysing those
in question in the light of previous Court findings relating to the matter it considered, given the costs and
risks involved, that referral would be inopportune.

(2003/C 28 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF) in Greece

The Greek press reports that Commissioner Barnier has sent letters to the Prime Minister, Mr Simitis, and
to the Transport and Finance Ministers, Mr Christodoulakis and Mr Verelis, containing a stern warning
concerning the utilisation of resources under the 3rd CSF. The reports state that the letters are dated
18 April 2002 and focus on specific problems such as proceeding with infrastructure projects without
carrying out the relevant studies, running over budgets, uncertainty over the completion of infrastructure
by 2008, etc.

The Greek press reports that it is not the first time that Mr Barnier has tried to make the Greek
Government more responsive; other letters have previously been sent to Mr Simitis, Mr Papantoniou and
Mr Pachtas.

How many times has Mr Barnier sent letters to the Greek Prime Minister and the ministers responsible
urging them to step up the take-up rate of appropriations under the 3rd CSF? Is it true that programmes
more than two years behind schedule will start to be curtailed or cancelled from 2003? In which fields are
the delays to be found and which major infrastructure projects are affected? Is it true that the Commission
refuses to disburse additional funds for projects under the 2nd CSF which have overrun their budgets? Does
the Commission know whether the Greek Government will cover these additional costs from the Greek
national budget?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The press articles to which the Honourable Member refers relate to an exchange of letters between the
Commission and the relevant Greek authorities about the findings of a number of checks which the

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/125

Commission carried out on three specific projects, part-financed under the Cohesion Fund, on the railway
line between Patras and Greece’s northern border. This is standard practice in the day-to-day management
of the Fund: under the Cohesion Fund Regulation (1), the findings of checks on projects are to be examined
in partnership with the national authorities concerned. This procedure is in progress.

It is too soon to predict which programmes and amounts will be subject to automatic decommitment,
known as the n+2 rule and governed by Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2). The rule will not apply to Greece
until the end of 2003 because the first commitments for the 2000-2006 period were made in 2001.

The deadline set for eligibility of expenditure for the 1994-1999 programming period was 31 December
2001. Member States had six months (cid:1) i.e. until 30 June 2002 (cid:1) to submit final declarations of
expenditure and final reports on programmes’ implementation, the deadline for completion of any appeals
being 31 March 2003. Consequently, the Commission cannot at this stage provide any information about
the Greek programmes’ closure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a

Cohesion Fund, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Chancellor Gordon Brown’s ‘Golden Rule’

(6 June 2002)

Does the Commission believe that Chancellor Gordon Brown’s so-called ‘golden rule’, which stipulates that
investment expenditure by government
(however welcome it might be) should not be counted as
expenditure for the purposes of the Growth and Stability Pact, is an example of fiscal rectitude consistent
with the terms of the Pact or something closer to ‘voodoo economics’ which will damage the U.K.’s
chances of achieving a balanced budget over the economic cycle?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The ‘golden rule’ is one of the British government’s two fiscal rules introduced to secure sound public
finances. The British government has also subscribed to the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact. This
requires that the government finances show a close to balance or surplus position in the medium term. In
practice, the British government finances have been close to balance or in surplus in recent years, thus
they have achieved the British
upholding the requirements of
government’s own fiscal rules. There would, therefore, not appear to have been an inconsistency up to
now between the achievement of the terms of the Pact and the government’s fiscal rules. It should be
noted that the achievement of the two British fiscal rules is a matter for the British government. It is
compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact that the Commission addresses in its surveillance and
assessment of the British public finances.

the Pact, while, at

the same time,

(2003/C 28 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Complimentary tickets

Would the Commission say which of its employees have received complimentary tickets to Football World
Cup events?