WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/03 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR)and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission. Disparities in travel expenses in connection with EU projects.
Date: 2003-02-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, EU programme, allowances and expenses, research budget, research expenditure (EU)

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/83

(2003/C 268 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR)
and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Disparities in travel expenses in connection with EU projects

People participating in the European Union’s various projects who live in peripheral regions of Europe are
compelled to budget for travel on the same basis as their counterparts who live more centrally. In practice
this means that those who live closer to the centre of Europe can travel to meetings using their own cars
or cheap flights, while for example those who live in Finland often exhaust their travel allowances before a
project is over. As a result they may not always be able to attend important meetings.

Could the Commission adjust its budgeting for travel expenses, for example using a coefficient which
reflects distances to be travelled and geographical location?

Could the Commission report on EU projects and for instance compare the travel expenses of people based
in Finland and Sweden on the one hand and Britain and Germany on the other? Differences in the costs of
individual journeys to different countries’ project representatives should also be examined, as should the
adequacy of travel allowances in relation to the duration of a project.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The question raised by the honourable member concerns travel expenses in research project carried out in
the Information Society Programme (IST) under the Fifth Framework Programme of
the European
Community (FP5) (1). The following paragraphs explain the rules for reimbursement of travel expenses in
the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) (2)

The Commission has set out in the Commission Regulation No 996/1999/EC of 11 May 1999 on the
implementation of Council Decision 1999/65/EC concerning the rules for the participation of undertak-
ings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation
of the Fifth framework programme of the European Community (1998-2002) the general principles for
the Community contributions for the FP5. In these rules, the general principle is that the Commission
contributes to the total eligible costs of the action. One of the eligible cost categories is travel and
subsistence. The principle for calculation of
the Community
contributes with a given percentage to these total eligible costs. In the case of organisations using the so-
called full cost model, the Community contribution is up to 50 % of the total eligible costs for travel for
in case of organisations using the so-called additional cost model, the Community
the participant,
contribution is 100 % of the total eligible costs. However, those using the additional cost model are not
reimbursed at 100 % for all their costs, only those additional direct costs that are not covered by their
recurrent funding.

the Community contribution is that

This principle is further elaborated in the Annex II to the different model contracts for FP5 and in the
financial guidelines that have been issued for FP5. However,
the
Commission contributes to the total eligible costs of the participants as documented by the participants.
The Commission has not set out specific rules or ceilings for travel reimbursement. The distribution of the
budget between cost categories is agreed by the participants and the Commission in negotiations before
the contract is signed for each contract individually. Although there is some room for adjustment of the
budget between categories and between partners, there are some limitations on these transfers, and often
the agreement of the Commission is required before a major transfer take place.

the main principle remains that

For the FP6 the main principle of the Community contributing to the total eligible costs has been
maintained, however with some important changes. In the FP6 there are no predefined eligible cost
categories, and the contract will not set out any breakdown in cost categories. The participants in a
contract can distribute the budget as they see fit with a view to achieving the purpose of the contract.
Therefore, the distribution of for example travel costs between the participants will be the responsibility of

C 268 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

the participants themselves and such costs would be reimbursed if they meet the criteria established by the
research contract (i.e. actual, economic and necessary, incurred during the life of the project, determined in
accordance with the contractor’s usual accounting principles and recorded in their accounts).

In summary for the research projects in both FP5 and FP6 it is an internal decision of the consortium how
the travel budget is distributed between the participants. As this is an internal decision for the consortia,
no coefficient for taking account the geographical distance is applied. The Commission has currently not
foreseen to carry out a comparison of
the travelling costs of different projects according to the
geographical origin of the participants. Under FP6 the Commission does not require a detailed breakdown
of the costs by category (such as travel) for each participant, but requires a management level justification
of the costs and their certification by an external auditor.

(1) http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/.
(2) http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/home.cfm.

(2003/C 268 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0255/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Lloyd’s of London

In the Commission press release of 21 January 2003 outlining the Commission’s continuation of
infringement procedures concerning the regulation and supervision of Lloyd’s of London, the Commission
‘recognises the improvements achieved through the FSMA 2000 regime, but still has some remaining
concerns over compliance with the Directive’ (73/239/EEC (1)).

Could the Commission detail how the new regime improves on the past regime?

Furthermore, the Commission’s press release states that ‘in the light of past failings, the Commission still
has concerns about the current regulatory and supervisory framework’.

Could the Commission specify what it considered these past failings to have been and elaborate which of
them remain at present?

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission is very much aware of the interest of the Honourable Member, as well as that of many
other parties, with regard to the Commission’s investigations in this complex and sensitive file. For this
reason the Commission decided to issue a press release on the despatch of both the first and the
supplementary letters of formal notice, although this is not normal at this stage of the Commission’s
enquiries.

Further evidence of the Commission’s goodwill and general wish for transparency is demonstrated by the
interventions of the Member of the Commission in charge of Internal Market to the
three personal
Parliament and the other efforts undertaken by the Commission to keep the Members of the Petitions
Committee regularly updated on the progress of this file.

However, the Honourable Member will understand that, in proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty
and in accordance with Article 10 of the same Treaty, the Commission must respect a climate of mutual
confidence in conducting its investigations and in pursuing its dialogue with a Member State. The objective
of such proceedings is to restore or to ensure compliance by a Member State with its Community
obligations, not to establish past compatibility or incompatibility. This objective requires confidentiality in
order not to prejudice the Commission in the fulfilment of one of its core tasks (cid:1) the control of the
application of Community law.

For this reason, the Commission cannot expand further on the precise nature of the possible failings and
allegations examined.