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 control, Italy, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, operational programme, project management, regional aid, regional development, structural expenditure

C 58 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0260/03

by Giovanni Pittella (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?

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.

(2004/C 58 E/015)

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;

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/15

(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?

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.

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

(12 February 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 58 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Tunisia (cid:1) Harassment of the lawyer Mr Abderraouf Ayadi

On 26 January 2003, Mr Abderraouf Ayadi, Secretary-General of the CNLT and Member of the Tunisian
Bar, was ill-treated by the border police on his return from a visit to Paris. He was subjected to a body
search and had all his personal documents (CNLT documents, professional papers and publications) seized
in flagrant breach of current legislation.