WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/03 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Delay by Greece in transposing directives.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, France, Greece, Portugal, administrative structures, economic consequence, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, single market

C 161 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Strategy, and there are many other channels by which the respective European institutions as well as
external actors and stakeholders can bring their own ideas and contributions to the process. This includes
specific and sectoral social partner organisations, other players in the economic and social fabric of
Europe, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who all have a key role to play in the achievement
of the Lisbon Strategy.

The Commission has indeed stressed the significant contribution of all socio-economic players in the
successful implementation of the Lisbon strategy and attainment of the targets for economic and social
reform, and fully recognises the role of the Chambers in the management of change represented by
EuroChambres, and the importance of the commerce and retail sector, represented by EuroCommerce.

Participation in the Summit has been necessarily restricted firstly for the practical reason of its efficiency,
in order to ensure that the forum operates effectively as a mechanism for tripartite concertation. Secondly,
because discussions at the Tripartite Social Summit are of an interprofessional nature, it follows that it
would be inappropriate to invite the participation of selected sectoral and specific organisations.
EuroChambres is listed in the organisations consulted under the provisions of Article 138 as a ‘specific
organisation’ and EuroCommerce as a ‘sectorial organisation’. As a result,
these
organisations are taken into account through their participation in other European-level fora, in particular,
in the case of EuroCommerce, the relevant sectorial social dialogue committee. Moreover, the proposal for
a decision now contains a specific reference to the fact that the European Trade Union Confederation
the
(ETUC) and the Union of
Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), as
their
spokespersons for the employees and employers representatives respectively, must ensure that
contributions take into account the opinions of specific and sectorial organisations. This underlines the fact
that the challenges of the Lisbon Strategy are not expected to be met solely by the Val Duchesse partners,
but by all socio-economic partners, including EuroChambres and EuroCommerce.

the positions of

(1) COM(2002) 341 final.

(2003/C 161 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Delay by Greece in transposing directives

According to data from the ‘Internal Market Scoreboard’
the
Commission publication, there are significant delays in some countries in the European Union in the
transposition of directives on the EU’s internal market, while in some of these Member States the rate of
transposition has slowed further in recent years.

(November 2002 issue, number 11),

On page 1 of the publication, the Commission states that the transposition deficit at EU level dropped
from 21,4 % in 1992 to 2,1 % in November 2002, but that the deficit of three Member States (France,
Portugal and Greece) is more than double the European Council’s target (i.e. that by spring 2003 the deficit
should not exceed 1,5 %). The report’s figure 4 shows that Greece must transpose 86 directives in total by
next spring if it wishes to eliminate the current transposition deficit.

What will be the consequences for the countries which do not manage to achieve the target of 1,5 % by
spring 2003? What justifications have been put forward by the authorities of the countries which are
lagging behind? Has the cost to undertakings in the EU of the delay in transposing directives relating to the
EU internal market been calculated? Are there, perhaps, plans to refer to the Court of the European
Communities, during the course of 2003, those countries which are delaying in transposing the above
directives? Which countries are involved and which directives or sectors are affected?

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.