WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Accounting for CAP.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, budgetary control, closing of accounts, common agricultural policy, implementation of the budget

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/149

(2003/C 110 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3009/02

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Data retention

The issue of keeping information must be addressed with a balanced approach as many interests are
involved: industry, combating crime, fundamental rights and, not least, cost aspects. Instead of continuing
down a road which risks not leading to a constructive result, would it not be better to try to address the
matter through data preservation and by amending the data protection directives?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission takes the Honorable Member’s question to refer to the possibility of resolving the
sensitive debate on the retention of traffic data in the fight against crime. The measures would be more
limited and would not automatically involve the ‘preservation’ of all such data. The Honorable Member
also suggests amending the data protection directives.

The Commission does not think it is necessary to amend the directives in order to permit ‘preservation’ of
traffic data since they already permit the Member States to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope
of certain rights and obligations for reasons of public policy.

The Commission would also remind the Honorable Member that the question of the retention of traffic
data has already been extensively discussed in connection with the adoption of the recent Parliament and
Council Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications (1)). The Commission does not consider it appropriate to resume the debate.

Finally, the Commission stresses that measures aimed at harmonising the obligations of Member States in
the fight against crime come under the third pillar.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2003/C 110 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Accounting for CAP

Whilst there is a system of shared responsibility between the Commission and Member States, will it
always be impossible to develop a proper system of accountancy and accountability? Is it possible to say in
relation to the CAP where EU funding is at any time?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

The method to implement the budget by means of shared responsibility between the Commission and the
Member State is explicitly foreseen in the current and the new Financial Regulation (1). In this case,
implementation operations are entrusted to Member States and the Commission may delegate measures of

C 110 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

budget implementation to executive agencies, which are defined in such a way that the Commission
retains control on implementation and can monitor their operation. The Commission shall apply clearance
of accounts procedures and appropriate financial correction mechanisms in order to ensure that the funds
are used in accordance with the applicable financial rules.

The Common agricultural policy (CAP) spending under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section are, therefore, executed under the full respect of the provision as laid
down in the Financial Regulation including the aspects of accountancy and accountability.

A reform of the Commission’s clearance of account procedure related to EAGGF (cid:1) Guarantee was
introduced in 1996.

The main features of this reformed system are the accreditation of paying agencies by the Member States
and an annual certification of their accounts by a body appointed by the Member States resulting in a
financial clearance decision taken in April of the following year. The certificate must state whether the
Certifying Body has gained reasonable assurance that the paying agency’s accounts are true, complete and
accurate. Compliance of payments with Community rules is only covered as regards the capability of the
paying agency’s administrative structure to ensure that such compliance has been checked before a
payment is made. Corrections based upon the Commission’s own examination of compliance aspects are
included in later conformity decisions. Member States have the opportunity to contest the corrections
proposed by the Commission before the Conciliation Body and, whether or not they choose to do so, have
the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

In it’s report of 30 November 2000,
‘the accreditation and
certification requirements have greatly improved Member States accountability for EAGGF funds although
there is scope for improvements on both fronts’.

the Court of auditors concluded that

As regards budget execution, the Commission provides to the Budgetary Authorities a monthly financial
reporting known as the Early Warning System. This report contains a detailed analysis of the expenditure
declared by Members States against the expected profile. In addition, the system of accounting provides an
annual budget nomenclature, which covers approximately 2000 separate budget lines and allows the
identification of aggregated monthly payments made to Member States at any moment within the monthly
intervals.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2003/C 110 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Sugar subsidies and the mid-term review of the CAP

Why has the question of sugar subsidies not been more radically addressed in the mid-term review of the
CAP?

When will we see a reduction of the scandal of export refunds making up to 80 % of the subsidy to sugar?

Would the Commission make a list of the top 100 companies who receive export refund payments?