WRITTEN QUESTION P-0261/03 by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission. Compatible projects.
Date: 2003-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Italy, Structural Funds, development aid, eligibility criteria, less-favoured region, operational programme, regional aid

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/23

(cid:1) What additions to the programming have been amended in order to make expenditure which has
already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole
purpose of avoiding the rule on automatic decommitment? Is the Commission prepared to accept
such a practice?

(cid:1) Does the Commission intend to ascertain in what way the funds which may be released through the

implementation of ‘consistent’ projects are used? If so, what conditions will it impose?

launched pursuant

(cid:1) Does the regions’ recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which
to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the
where not
Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the
Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,
partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and
undermining the cohesion policy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2004/C 65 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0261/03

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:

‘Compatible’ projects

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1):

(cid:1) the reason for strengthening cohesion policy (which is supported by means of the Structural Funds) is
to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness
of the least-favoured regions or islands;

(cid:1) decentralised implementation of Structural Fund operations by the Member States should provide
sufficient guarantees as to the details and quality of implementation and to results and the evaluation
thereof;

(cid:1) achievement of such objectives is ensured through the observance of certain principles (programming,
concentration, integration and additionality) which justify the existence of an EU cohesion policy.

Furthermore:

(cid:1) the first year in which the rule on automatic decommitment applied ended on 31 December 2002;

(cid:1) in the case of Italy, only 70-80 % of the expenditure certifications submitted by the regions by the

above date relate to so-called ‘support’ projects (i.e. ones consistent with the programmes).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

(cid:1) For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact
amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected
on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating
to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG?

(cid:1) What additions to the programming have been amended in order to make expenditure which has
already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole
purpose of avoiding the rule on automatic decommitment? Is the Commission prepared to accept
such a practice?

(cid:1) Does the Commission intend to ascertain in what way the funds which may be released through the

implementation of ‘consistent’ projects are used? If so, what conditions will it impose?

C 65 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

launched pursuant

(cid:1) Does the regions’ recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which
where not
to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the
Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the
Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,
partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and
undermining the cohesion policy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions P-0260/03 and P-0261/03
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds, sets out the conditions for eligibility of expenditure related to an operational
programme.

The Community Support Framework for Italian Objective 1 regions states that during the ‘first phase of
implementation’ (1) and in the interest of continuity programmes can finance ongoing actions, provided
they are consistent with the objectives, strategies and procedures of the programmes themselves (at the
measure level) as well as with Community legislation and the rules of the Structural Funds. It is assumed
that the Honourable Member refers to this ‘first phase of implementation’ period when he makes reference
to so-called ‘support’ projects in his question.

Evidence of the outcome of this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure must be included in the
programme annual implementation reports for the year 2002, which have to be approved and forwarded
to the Commission by programme monitoring committees concerned before June 2003.

Under the subsidiarity principle of the Structural Funds, expenditure incurred under the Objective 1
programmes is declared at the level of measures; thus it is not possible for the Commission to make a
distinction among projects financed under the ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure and the selection
procedures/criteria agreed under the Programme Complements.

As this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure is limited to the take-off phase of the Objective 1
programmes approved, and as it does not allow the financing of projects which are in contrast with
programme objectives and implementation rules, the Commission has no evidence that it will jeopardise
the development objectives and strategies agreed under the Community Support Framework and the
operational programmes.

So far as additionnality is concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 states that
its respect must be verified at the mid-term review. This is expected to take place at the end of 2003.
Within that framework, the Commission will ensure that the concept of additionnality is respected for the
whole Community Support Framework relating to Objective 1 in Italy.

(1) During this period, which ended in June 2002, programme monitoring committees had to approve project selection
criteria within the framework of the Programme Complements. These criteria are used thereafter for the selection of
projects under the different measures in the programmes.

(2004/C 65 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/03

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Construction of the ‘Fenice’ special/toxic waste incinerator

(7 February 2003)

The problem of the ‘Fenice’ special/toxic waste incinerator, a project called for by the Fiat Group, dates
back to 1994.

The Fenice spa company decided to set up a plant in the commune of Verrone, Biella province, to
incinerate waste classed in the ‘special and hazardous’ category, under the terms of Decree/VIA 11/08/
1995.