WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. MEPs' salaries and public confidence.
Date: 2003-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, parliamentary allowance

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/177

The first paragraph of Article 26 says the Commission must be informed of such projects ‘in advance’, so
no expenditure relating to this project declared to the Commission can be reimbursed prior to a formal
decision being taken within the meaning of the third paragraph of the same Article.

Also, the Commission has received a number of complaints about the Morrazo project and the possible
mis-application of Community environmental law, leading to an exchange of information with the Spanish
authortiies. And this case featured on the agenda of the ‘package’ meeting on environment-related
complaints and infringement procedures held in Madrid on 3/4 April 2003. An enviromental impact study
has been carried out, with the Spanish authorities finding the project would not affect any site proposed
for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. This matter is currently under examination by the Commission
in the light of all of the above.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds

(OJ L 161, 26.6.1999).

(2004/C 11 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1353/03

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Fiat works (cid:1) special EU subsidies

The Fiat works in Turin are to receive their own special EU subsidies towards developing the new
generation of Euro 4-class lorries.

In this connection:

1.

2.

3.

Is it true that the Fiat works in Turin are profiting from additional EU funds for the development of
Euro 4-class lorries?

If so, how does the Commission justify this action?

Is this decision to be seen in connection with the current discussion of the arrangement which is to
succeed the Austrian transit agreement and the planned exceptions for Euro 4-class lorries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

In response to the first part of the question posed by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not
aware of any Union funds being given to Fiat for the specific purpose of developing heavy-duty vehicles
that satisfy the Euro 4 emission standard. The second and third parts of the question therefore do not
apply.

(2004/C 11 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: MEPs’ salaries and public confidence

There has been a long-standing debate within the EU concerning a change in the pay structure for MEPs.
A current proposal is that the present system, whereby MEPs receive the same salary as a member of the
respective national parliament, should be replaced by a system in which all MEPs would receive an average

C 11 E/178

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

of the various levels of pay which currently exist for MEPs from the various Member States. Should such a
change come about, it could mean, for example, that Swedish MEPs would receive a pay rise of some
SEK 35 000. There is a risk that such a steep increase in the current salaries of Swedish MEPs would bring
about a manifest crisis of confidence in Sweden, and would probably widen the gap between elected
representatives and electorate.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the risk that a change in MEPs’ pay structure (cid:1) whereby Swedish
Members, for example, might receive a pay rise of SEK 35 000 (cid:1) will result in a lack of voter confidence in
their Members of Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the draft statute for Members of Parliament continues to be the
subject of intensive discussion between the Council and Parliament and therefore at present there is no
specific proposal of Parliament on the table. Once the Commission is seized of a formal proposal adopted
by Parliament, it will give the opinion required under Article 190(5) of the Treaty.

(2004/C 11 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1376/03

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Advances (cid:1) Objective 1 research projects

(7 April 2003)

What is the interpretation of Article 32 of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1) and the Commission’s definitive
position with regard to payment of advances and the issue of whether they are to be taken into account
(or not) for the n+2 rule, in respect of research projects cofunded under the Structural Funds included in
the Spanish Objective 1 R & D operational programme in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Article 32(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions
on the Structural Funds stipulates that interim payments and payments of the balance are to relate to
expenditure actually paid out, which must correspond to payments effected by the final beneficiaries,
supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 (1)
laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of
operations co-financed by the Structural Funds defines the concept ‘expenditure actually paid out’. In order
to clarify this concept, the Commission sent an interpretative note to Member States in September 2001.
The note stresses that payments of advances by final beneficiaries must not be included in expenditure
declared to the Commission.

With a view to including advances in eligible expenditure in certain cases, the Commission undertook to
present a proposal for amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000. That proposal having been rejected
by the majority of Member States, the Commission informed them on 19 February 2003 that it would not
be making further proposals.

Because of legitimate expectations which may have arisen during the discussion, advances for which the
decision granting aid was taken by Member States before 19 February 2003 and advances for which aid
was granted by appeal to proposals closed before 19 February 2003 are considered eligible for Community
part-financing.