WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/03 by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community Initiative Programmes.
Date: 2003-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, EU financing arrangements, EU initiative, European Regional Development Fund, commitment of expenditure, deprived urban area, regional aid, regions of the United Kingdom, rural development

C 242 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Greek draft interministerial decision constituting the legal basis for the compensation scheme provides
for a budget of GRD 25 billion (EUR 73 367 572), to be financed as follows:

(cid:1) GRD 17 billion (EUR 49 889 949)

the Ministry of
Agriculture (SAE 082/3); on the basis of the Commission’s conclusions when examining other
compensation cases, this appears to be eligible for part-financing,

from the public investment programme of

(cid:1) GRD 8 billion (EUR 23 477 623) from the ordinary budget of the Ministry of Agriculture,

in other

words State aid.

The Commission must therefore decide whether two sources of financing can be used, i.e. it must consider
this case in the light of two sets of rules.

The Greek authorities were recently asked to provide additional information. The Commission is awaiting
their reply before drawing up a draft decision.

There are several reasons for the time taken to examine the compensation scheme:

(cid:1) Under Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1), when the Commission examines State aid,
it has two months from the day following the receipt of a complete notification to reach a decision.

(cid:1) When the Greek authorities notified the compensation scheme, they announced their intention of not
waiting for the Commission’s approval before making advance payments. These advance payments
began without the Commission’s agreement, and became illegal aid under the above-mentioned
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Article 13(2) of the Regulation provides that in cases of possible
unlawful aid the time-limit mentioned above does not apply. As pointed out above, the Commission
must in any case await the reply of the Greek authorities before drafting a proposal for a decision.

they must present an amended version of

(cid:1) If the Greek authorities are intending to finance the compensation scheme for farmers from part-
‘Rural development’
financed funds,
operational programme for 2000-2006 drawn up under the Community Support Framework for
Greece, re-drawing the profiles of the financial tables of the programme to take account of the funds
transferred between priorities. The profiles should be redrawn not only as a function of the use of the
part-financed funds under the scheme we are concerned with here, but also to take account of all
transfers of funds in the framework of other compensation schemes set up by the Greek authorities.
The Commission has not so far received an amended version of the programme, or the new profiles
for the financial tables. Until these documents are available, the Commission cannot take any decision
concerning the use of the part-financed funds under the compensation scheme.

their national

(1) OJ L 93, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(2003/C 242 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/03

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Community Initiative Programmes

In view of the low take-up of various Community Initiative Programmes by the United Kingdom, could the
Commission please supply details, broken down by region, of submissions made by the UK on the Leader+
and Urban II programmes (by value).

Would the Commission also comment on what steps it intends to take in respect of the Government’s
submitted forecasts for spending under these programmes whose outturn is over 25 % different to the
forecasts and what sum of money, actually committed for UK projects, will be subjected to such action?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/147

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the management of the programmes financed under the
Structural Funds is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States. Once the
broad strategic priorities for each programme have been decided in agreement with the Commission, it is
the responsibility of
individual projects for support and to monitor
implementation. The Commission does not therefore receive requests for funding for individual projects
and does not consequently commit financial resources at the project level.

the Member States to select

Financial support from the Structural Funds to the programmes is delivered via payments on account and
following payment applications submitted by the relevant authority in the Member State. In accordance
laying down general
with Article 31.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999,
provisions on the Structural Funds,
the Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a
Community budget commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it
has not received an acceptable payment application by the end of the second year following the year of
commitment. For the United Kingdom, no decommitments have been made at this stage in respect of
Leader+ and URBAN II. For both programmes, the initial budgetary commitments were not made until
2001. Therefore, in accordance with Article 31.2 the possibility of a decommitment will not arise until the
end of 2003.

As far as forecasts for payment applications are concerned, the Commission has asked Member States
through the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions (CDCR) to stress to their payment
authorities the importance of reliable forecasts in view of a sound and efficient budget execution.

(2003/C 242 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Rules on reversing alarms

It is interesting to note that studies conducted by the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Authority)
in the United States show a high rate of accidents in which pedestrians, many of them children, have been
killed by reversing vehicles. Unfortunately, no similar statistics are available in Europe. Reversing alarms
can prove effective, as has been shown in Anglo-Saxon countries. However, in Europe, such devices are
prohibited by some highway codes (e.g. in France) and not even mentioned in others (e.g. in Italy).

Does the Commission not consider that rules should be introduced on the subject at Community level with
respect to lorries, buses, camper-vans, caravans and any other vehicles whose driver’s view is restricted
when reversing?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission is concerned that as far as is practicable and necessary, blind spots in the driver’s field of
view to the front, side, and rear of the vehicle should be eliminated. To this end, the Commission has
proposed a draft Directive (1) which aims at increasing the field of indirect vision for drivers of passenger
cars, buses and lorries by upgrading the performance of rear view mirrors and accelerating the
introduction of new technologies for detecting other road users or pedestrians within the blind spots
around motor vehicles.

The Commission proposal adds specific blind spot reduction requirements to the existing Directive on
rear-view mirrors.