WRITTEN QUESTION P-2752/02 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Budget execution of Category 2 of the financial perspective in 2002.
Date: 2002-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, aid for restructuring, budget policy, commitment of expenditure, fishing fleet, frontier region, implementation of the budget, management accounting, regional aid

C 155 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

States before tax for smaller cars. Unfortunately, however, for powerful ‘luxury’ models, Greece is the most
expensive Member State both before and after tax. According to the Commission’s tables, for example, in
order to buy an Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS 16V, a Greek citizen has to pay some 40 % more than a Belgian
citizen. Can the Commission explain what measures it will take to reduce this significant disparity within
the Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The six-monthly report on price differentials between cars in the European Union, the latest issue of which
was published on 22 July 2002 (1), regularly draws attention to price differentials between Member States
resulting from the strategies pursued by different manufacturers. This situation shows that there is too little
competition between dealers supplying the same type of car within the Union. Accordingly,
the
Commission has made significant amendments to the applicable competition rules. On 31 July 2002, it
adopted Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 on the motor vehicle sector (2), which entered into force on
1 October 2002, following the expiry of the previous regulation (3). The regulation provides for several
measures exercising competitive pressure on price differentials relating to the same make of car within the
single market, such as the differential referred to above.

In particular, the regulation stipulates that block exemptions do not apply to distribution agreements
which restrict sales of new private cars by retail dealers to final users who request them, irrespective of
their place of residence. In the case in point, this means that any obstacle, whether direct or indirect, to the
sale of a private car to a Greek consumer wishing to purchase it in Belgium, either personally or through
an intermediary empowered to make such a purchase, would be incompatible with the regulation. Nor do
block exemptions cover restrictions on deliveries between dealers. This means that car manufacturers
cannot object if Greek dealers decide to buy their stock from Belgian dealers. Finally, as of 1 October
2005, the regulation will not cover any restrictions on the establishment of sales points or vehicle supply
points where selective distribution is in force. In the case in point, if such a system were to be applied in
Belgium and Greece, Belgian dealers would be free to set up a sales point, or a supply point in Greece to
supply vehicles ordered by Greek consumers.

As in the past, the Commission will ensure compliance with these vehicle distribution rules and will,
where necessary, take legal action against any violations of competition law which are liable to deprive
European consumers of the benefits of the single market.

(1) See press release IP/02/1109 of 22.7.2002.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (cid:1) OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to

certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (cid:1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2003/C 155 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2752/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Subject: Budget execution of Category 2 of the financial perspective in 2002

The Commission has stated that as at 12 September 2002 a total of EUR 1 501 million in commitment
appropriations had not yet been committed.

Does the Commission believe it is possible to ensure execution of the EUR 1 330 million corresponding to
the Cohesion Fund before the end of the budget year?

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/47

What is the execution percentage provided for in the case of the Community Initiatives and, in particular,
Article B2-141 on aid to border regions in the applicant countries?

Does the Commission consider it possible or desirable to use a part of the commitment appropriations
which are likely not to be committed to provide the EUR 27 million which are still
lacking for the
programme for the restructuring of the fleet which formerly fished in Moroccan waters, and which, while
initially not included in the 2002 budget, should be committed before the end of 2003?

Answer by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Honourable Member is referring to the use of commitment appropriations in heading 2 of the
financial perspective. The commitment appropriations not yet committed relate primarily to the Cohesion
Fund.

Current implementation of the Cohesion Fund is running above the rate predicted by the Commission in
its original
implementation plan for September 2002, which was sent to the budgetary authority. It
corresponds to the position as at September 2001, a year in which resources were in the end almost fully
utilised. In the case of the Cohesion Fund, the resources for each project were committed separately. There
is no provision for the automatic commitment of appropriations characteristic of nearly all the Structural
Funds. This explains why payments of Cohesion Fund resources are concentrated so heavily at the end of
the year.

The Commission has so far not had any indication that the commitment appropriations for the Cohesion
Fund could not be sufficiently implemented in 2002.

Efforts are currently being made to use up virtually all the commitment appropriations available for the
Community initiatives. The current utilisation rate is 96,3 %. The commitment appropriations still available
are intended primarily for the Community initiatives for border areas (Interreg). Within the limits of its
powers, the Commission will do everything to ensure that these programmes are accepted by the end of
2002 or to satisfy the requirements for a transfer of resources.

Other commitment appropriations that have not yet been committed relate to the EQUAL and Leader
initiatives. Some of these resources will very probably be deployed at the end of 2002.

It has already been possible, however, to use up all the resources for the new budget line ‘Support for
regions bordering candidate countries’
(B2-1411) by allocating them to specific operations under the
existing Interreg programmes.

In the Commission’s view,
it will not be possible to find in heading 2 the EUR 27 million needed to
finance the restructuring of the fishing fleet deployed in Moroccan waters. The only conclusion one can
draw from an examination of all the relevant Structural Fund lines is that EUR 9 million has not been used
and is available for partial prefinancing of the EUR 27 million in 2002. In any event, for the purposes of
the 2003 budget, it will be necessary to resort to the flexibility instrument in respect of this financing.

(2003/C 155 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Cross-border social issue

Does the Commission play a role in helping citizens with cross-border welfare problems to resolve them
satisfactorily? If so, can it indicate which of its departments can assist or intervene? (Details of particular
case available if required). The case in question involves maintenance payments in respect of two children
of an Irish citizen from her divorced Greek Cypriot husband. Can the Commission indicate how justice can
be best served?