WRITTEN QUESTION E-1116/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Use of funds from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni.
Date: 2003-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Umbria, cooperation policy, fund (EU), local government, project evaluation, regional development, regional policy, third country, use of aid

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/139

(2004/C 11 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1116/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report
on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by
some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been
echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use
European funds to promote cooperation between regional operators from different geographical areas with
a view to creating a common project based on the sharing of experience or know-how, to promote
decentralisation, thereby encouraging the development of competencies at regional and local level, and to
strengthen the operating capacity and working methods of local and regional authorities in Central and
Eastern European countries, as well as those of socio-economically underdeveloped regions of the EU,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Ecos-Ouverture II programme?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answer
to Written questions E-0832/03, E-0891/03, E-1104/03,
E-1105/03, E-1106/03, E-1107/03, E-1108/03, E-1109/03, E-1110/03,
E-1111/03, E-1112/03, E-1113/03, E-1114/03, E-1115/03 and E-1116/03
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

Article 10 of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the
European Regional Development Fund (1) provided a mechanism for financing innovative regional
development measures, including inter-regional co-operation with partners outside the Union. This was
the ‘ECOS- Ouverture II’ programme, led by Directorate General (DG) Regional Policy and also co-funded
by DG Enlargement with its PHARE programme.

Under the ECOS-Ouverture programme, two Calls for Proposals were published, on in 1997 and one in
1998. Both times the Commission received more than 300 applications. Following a selection procedure
applying the criteria published in the Calls for Proposals, a total of 63 projects were selected. The projects
started between the end of 1998 and the beginning of 2000, and closed between the end of 2001 and the
beginning of 2003.

Among the local authorities referred to in the above mentioned written questions, only the municipalities
of Perugia and Terni applied for funding under the ECOS-Ouverture programme in 1997. Perugia applied
again in 1998 with two different projects. Also in 1998, Firenze, Pistoia Provincia and Prato applied each
with one project and Siena with two projects. None of the projects submitted by the mentioned local
authorities were selected for funding.

C 11 E/140

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Thirty other Italian local authorities are represented as principal partners in the ‘ECOS-Ouverture II’
programme. This is the highest number of principal partners per country in this programme.

Until the Commission has completed examination of the ECOS-Ouverture projects’ final reports in the
coming months, it will not be possible to say whether all of these Italian principal partners were able to
use all their funding. However, the experience with the projects that are already closed shows that it is
seldom the case that the funds available under the ECOS-Ouverture programme are under-spent.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2004/C 11 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Auditors’ recommendations

In its reply of 8 April 2002 to my Written Question E-0329/02 (1) of 12 February 2002 concerning a
letter from the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy to the Greek
authorities regarding failings in the management of the third ESF, the Commission indicated that ‘in their
reply of 14 November 2001 to the Commission’s observations, the Greek authorities confirmed that the
major part of the auditors’ recommendations had been implemented’.

How is the Commission ensuring that the Greek authorities have in fact taken account of the auditors’
recommendations?

From June 2001 to date, how many checks have been carried out for which programmes or initiatives?
What were the findings for each programme or initiative? What were the replies from the Greek
Government and what action was taken by the Commission?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 117.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

there have been three audit missions by the Commission concerning the
Since November 2001,
management and control systems of
the Community Support Framework as well as a number of
Operational Programmes. Within the framework of the partnerships, the findings of the audits are subject
to discussion with the Greek authorities. It is too early to draw conclusions on these findings.

(2004/C 11 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Printer cartridges

Is the Commission aware that many ink jet printer cartridges currently on the market in the EU are fitted
with ‘Smartchip’ technologies that give an inaccurate indication of the amount of ink in the cartridge,
leading to significant waste of ink and loss of value to the consumer when they mistakenly discard an ink
cartridge that still contains a considerable amount of useful and valuable ink?