WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/02 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Official Commission delegation to Morocco: situation regarding the EU-Morocco Action Plan.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, Commission Delegation, EU relations, Morocco, action programme, border control, cooperation policy, illegal migration, report

C 161 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Since the Shipbuilding Regulation, like other state aid rules, provides for maximum aid limits, it may be
that some Member States decide to provide less aid than that which is allowed or no aid at all. This is
normal and fully in line with Community state aid policy.

2.
If aid has been approved by the Commission based on the Shipbuilding Regulation, and provided
it is the view of the
accordingly,
Commission that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common
interest.

including compliance with any conditions set by the Commission,

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2003/C 161 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3011/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: CAP subsidies to the UK royal family

How much does Queen Elizabeth II receive in CAP subsidies? How much does Prince Charles receive in
CAP subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

The Honourable Member is requesting information on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies paid to
certain individuals.

Member States are required to send to the Commission certain accounting information every year, whose
content and form is precisely described by Community rules. However, according to Regulation (EC)
No 45/2001 (1), the Commission is obliged to ensure that this information in question is kept confidential
and secure. Therefore, the Commission is not allowed by Community rules to provide the requested
information to the Honourable Member.

is recommended to the Honourable Member to address his request direct

It
concerned, who holds all the necessary information for answering to the Honourable Member.

to the Member State

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free
movement of such data, OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.

(2003/C 161 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Official Commission delegation to Morocco: situation regarding the EU-Morocco Action Plan

Recent media reports have revealed that an official Commission delegation is visiting Morocco in order to
assess the situation regarding the Action Plan which has been devised by the European Union and the
Moroccan Government for the purpose of dealing with immigration from Africa.

In view of the fact that this issue is of significance in social terms to a number of EU regions (such as the
Canary Islands, on account of their geographical proximity and the fact that they constitute one of the
EU’s external borders), what does the Commission think of the report drawn up by the official delegation?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/61

Reply given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

One of the priorities of the 2002-2004 Indicative National Programme for Morocco, signed with the
is the issue of migration. This section makes provision for a
Moroccan authorities in January 2002,
programme for the management of border controls, for which the indicative sum of EUR 40 million is
earmarked. This special programme aims to build institutional capacity, develop the regulatory framework,
modernise infrastructure and equipment, train people and develop cooperation between the services
concerned in Morocco and the Member States. In this context, and with a view to assessing the situation as
regards the management of border controls, experts from the Member States and the Commission made an
official visit to Morocco in July 2002.

This action is part of the dialogue on migration provided for by the association agreement between the
Community and Morocco.

In the course of this mission the experts visited the main border posts and the border regions most
affected by illegal
immigration, particularly involving people from sub-Saharan Africa (Casablanca,
Tangiers, Tetouan, Kenitra, Nador, Oujda and Laayoune).

The Moroccan authorities have stressed their government’s determination to combat illegal emigration
effectively and to cooperate with the Union on the issue of border controls. In this context, specific
information was made available in July and September 2002 on the regulatory framework, putting that
framework into practice, and relevant statistics.

The experts will finalise their report over the coming weeks, on the basis of the results obtained during the
visit and after examining the information provided. An activity programme will then be drawn up.

(2003/C 161 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Organisations that find funding

Is the Commission aware that there are companies offering to find European funding opportunities for
charities in return for a percentage of the funding received? Such companies may collect all information,
write all documents and reports needed for the funding and collecting all the data: they essentially
formulate the application. What are the Commission’s views on this practice and is there anything that can
be done under current EU rules to detect it or prevent it? Can the Commission provide information as to
whether there are any plans to address this issue in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Honourable Member’s question to the Commission relates to certain intermediation practices of
companies offering their services, at a charge, to potential candidates in order to help them obtain
Community funding.

In contractual terms, whatever the nature of the intermediation service proposed (search for external
funding, whether or not from the Community,
in connection with the co-financing of the action,
administrative assistance in preparing and presenting the funding application), the cost of such services
would not satisfy the general eligibility criteria for the costs of an action under the standard grant
agreement for an action, in that such costs would not be directly linked to the object of the agreement nor
would they derive from requirements imposed directly by the agreement.

Financial intermediation practices of this type could not therefore be financed from Community funds.