WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission, for a great variety of religious organisations.
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, aid system, economic support, non-profit organisation, promotion of the European idea, religious group

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/209

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is right in expressing concern about Member States failing to implement Internal
Market Directives on time. Last November 2002, disappointingly, only five Member States (Denmark,
The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom) met the European Council’s target of having a
transposition deficit of 1,5 % or less. Greece, France and Portugal had transposition deficits at least double
that of the European Council’s target. The Internal Market Scoreboard will, of course, continue to report
on Member States’ performance. The next edition will be issued in May 2003.

The Commission launches infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty every time a
Member State misses a transposition deadline. When cases are not resolved, they are referred to the
European Court of Justice. While the threat of legal action is, of course, critical to ensuring compliance, the
Commission also seeks to generate peer pressure to get Member States to speed up matters. The ‘name and
shame’ approach pursued by the Internal Market Scoreboard has been effective in helping to improve the
transposition performance of Member States, as witnessed by the fact that the average transposition deficit
has been reduced from 21,4 % a decade ago to close to 2 % at present. The Commission has also begun to
organise so-called ‘package’ meetings with Member States with a view to preventing problems as well as
discussing ways of ensuring high-quality transpositions. The Commission is confident that such meetings
not only contribute to speedier transposition, but also to fewer cases of incorrect transposition.

The reasons for non- or late transposition are not always clear, but can vary from case to case. From
it seems that in most cases delays stem from inadequate
information available to the Commission,
planning and lack of co-ordination within national administrations. Administrations often start
the
national transposition process too late. In the case of longer delays, the reasons often go deeper in that it
may be a symptom of serious political difficulties or even unwillingness to transpose.

The Commission is not in a position to quantify the costs of non-transposition to business other than on
the basis of anecdotal evidence in individual cases. However, it is clear that these costs can be considerable.
Following a recent request from the Parliament (the Harbour Report on the 2002 Internal Market Strategy
it
Review adopted on 13 February 2003) the Commission will examine this question again. However,
should be noted that the measures which represent the deficit for each Member State change constantly, as
outstanding directives are transposed and deadlines on new directives are missed. Furthermore, non-
transposition creates legal insecurity whose impact on the behaviour of businesses and citizens is always
difficult to estimate. Both aspects pose considerable challenges to the possibility of quantifying the costs of
non-transposition.

(2003/C 161 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission, for a great variety of

religious organisations

In the answer to Question E-0291/01 (1), it was stated that ‘a great variety of religious organisations …
may be eligible for small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission. These are
of two types: firstly there are subsidies to help cover the running costs of coordination and representation
activities, at European level, of not-for-profit organisations; and secondly there are specific grants for
individual projects.’

Will the Commission provide details of the amounts and the names of the organisations which received
such small grants in the period 2000-2002 for the coordination and representation activities at European
level of not-for-profit organisations and for individual projects?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 78.

C 161 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Only the Brussels-based organisation Church & Society Commission, which provides the secretariat for
A Soul for Europe covering the main faiths (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) as well as humanism, received
financial assistance for activities involving the coordination and representation of religious organisations at
European level during the period 2000-2002. This was a result of ‘earmarking’ by Parliament for budget
heading A-3021. The grant amounts awarded in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were EUR 44 000, EUR 41 000 and
EUR 39 780 respectively.

Heading A-3024 of the Union’s general budget makes provision for grants for specific projects organised
by associations and federations of European interest.

This budget heading was allocated an identical amount for each of the three years 2000, 2001 and 2002,
namely EUR 1 260 000 per year.

This appropriation was exclusively intended to support activities and projects with a European focus as
well as activities connected with reflection at European level on the ethical and spiritual foundations of the
building of Europe.

Lists of beneficiaries during the three years in question are being sent directly to the Honourable Member
and to the General Secretariat of Parliament.

(2003/C 161 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0333/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Conclusion of an association agreement between the European Union and the Principality of

Monaco

The situation of EU citizens who live in Italy and work in Monaco is rendered very difficult and
complicated by the existing social security agreement between the two countries.

The real root of the problem is the absence of any agreement on social security between the European
Union and the Principality of Monaco, which prevents the application of the provisions for coordination
contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1).

Does the Commission intend to propose the conclusion of an association agreement between the European
Union and the Principality of Monaco, which would include agreements on the free movement of persons
and social security, so as to enable the situation of EU citizens in Monaco to be covered by the relevant
Community provisions?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

While the Principality of Monaco is a third country outside the European Union, it is covered by several
Community policies because of its privileged relationship with France. For example, Monaco is part of the
territory of the European Community’s customs union and has the right to coin and print euros.

It should be noted that in the area of social security each Member State may conclude a bilateral
agreement with a third country. Italy took this option by concluding a general social security agreement
with Monaco.

However, the Commission is aware that the current situation is causing an increasing number of problems,
not only for European citizens working in the country but also, for example, for tourists requiring
emergency health care.