WRITTEN QUESTION E-1908/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Delayed payment of development grants.
Date: 2003-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, administration of the Institutions, administrative formalities, commitment of expenditure, project management, regional development

C 33 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The content of this publicity is pure propaganda in that it highlights the government’s ‘achievements’ in
education,
financial
the economy etc., making only a passing reference to the Community’s vital
contribution.

Does the Commission know the exact cost of the publicity for the 2008 CSF? Which Community
appropriations are covering the cost? Is the Commission aware of the content of the publicity? Did the
Commission authorise payment for publicity, particularly at peak viewing times? Can such propaganda
continue to be broadcast in the run-up to the Greek general election?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

information campaigns on European regional policy is a responsibility that

The launching of
is
decentralised to the authorities in the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. It is
for the Member State to identify the most appropriate manner to inform the public while respecting the
provisions in relation to Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 (1) and those contained in the Community Support
Framework (CSF). The Honourable Member may wish to note that these provisions also require publicity
actions to be interrupted two months before any election date. The Commission has no information at its
disposal to suggest that there has been any misuse of Community funds in Greece for the information
campaign.

It is not possible to make an assessment of the total amount of resources that will be mobilised for
publicity and information in Greece during the third CSF since these are included within the total
appropriations for technical assistance, and are not separately identified within those appropriations.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried

out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds, OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.

(2004/C 33 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1908/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Delayed payment of development grants

In February 2003, a grant was awarded for a project to develop a particular business environment. The
grant was awarded by a local manpower and business centre in Finland. However, the project leaders
report that the project will not receive the promised money until December 2003.

How long does it generally take for payments to be made to EU-funded projects?

Why are payments delayed after grants have been awarded? Is this due to the slowness of Member States’
own administrations or is it caused by EU rules?

In the light of feedback from Member States, how big a problem are delays in grant payments for EU-
funded projects?

How could the award and payment of grants be accelerated?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/189

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the Commission’s discussion partners as regards regional
development are the Member States and not final beneficiaries. The Commission would therefore advise
the Honourable Member to request further information from the managing authority or the paying
authority for the programme concerned in Finland.

Since project management is decentralised, the Commission does not have statistics on the current
intervals between a financing decision in a Member State and the first reimbursement received by the
beneficiary. However, the Commission facilitates the launch of a programme by granting a payment on
account as soon as it decides to part-finance the whole programme. The payment on account comprises
7 % of the amount of the programme under the rules for 2000-2006. Apart from a few pilot projects, the
Finnish programmes were adopted by the Commission in 2000 or 2001. Since then the national authority
has therefore had available the 7 % payment on account to finance the Community portion of the project
to which the Honourable Member refers, without waiting for reimbursement of expenditure actually
incurred.

Beyond that payment on account, the Commission reimburses the Member State solely on the basis of
expenditure actually incurred (1). For the current programming period, the payment interval within the
Directorate-General responsible for regional policy has been 37 days since the beginning of 2003.
Although that payment interval cannot therefore be regarded as excessive (2), the Commission continually
seeks to improve its internal procedures in the interests of efficiency and simplification. On 25 April 2003
the Commission endorsed 10 measures in a communication on management simplification, clarification,
coordination and flexibility.

‘in carrying out

The administrative slowness to which the Honourable Member refers cannot therefore be regarded as a
consequence of the provisions on the Structural Funds. Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
in full compliance with the
its tasks the managing authority shall act
states that
institutional,
the Member State concerned’. Article 3 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3) requires Member States’ management and control systems to be devised
subject to proportionality in relation to the volume of assistance administered.

legal and financial systems of

(1)

In accordance with Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (cid:1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Article 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 states that ‘the Commission shall make interim

payments within no more than two months of receipt of an acceptable payment application’.

(3) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.

(2004/C 33 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1909/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Natura 2000

In the view of the Commission, can the rigid policy of the Flemish government on Natura 2000 areas
situated in the VEN (Flemish Environmental Network) be reconciled with the provisions of the Natura
2000 directive?

The Flemish policy is based on a whole series of orders and prohibitions, with inadequate and
inappropriate compensation, which furthermore take no account of socio-economic factors.