WRITTEN QUESTION P-2154/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects.
Date: 2003-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, contract, innovation, payment appropriation, research and development, research programme, research project

C 78 E/732

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0781)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2154/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects

One of the aims of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Research is to encourage innovation.
Against this background, the Commission asked interested parties to submit by 15 March 2002 proposals
for innovative projects under the reference number INN/01/02. Following the assessment process, in June
2002 31 projects were approved. However, by late December 2002 only four contracts had been
concluded.

Can the Commission state why, more than one year following the award of funding, contracts have not
been drawn up for 27 of the 31 projects and when it intends to conclude those contracts?

Does the Commission share my view that delays of this kind pose a serious threat to individual projects? If
so, what measures is the Commission taking in order to minimise the problems which these delays may
cause?

In respect of how many projects under the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Research have
contracts not yet been signed, even though the assessment of those projects was completed one year, or
even longer, ago?

As of late May 2003 the backlog of payments under the budget title covering research and technological
development totals some EUR 7 billion. Can the Commission state how quickly it intends to reduce that
backlog, what measures it is taking in order to achieve that aim and whether there is a danger that some
of the appropriations will be cancelled? In that connection, are delays also occurring in the disbursement
of funding for projects already under way and in respect of which invoices are regularly submitted? If so,
in how many cases (absolute and relative proportion of all current projects) and for what reasons?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The proposals for innovative projects under the reference INN/01/02 were submitted in response to a call
for proposals opened on 15 December 2001 and closed on 15 March 2002. According to the relevant
procedures, the consortia of 31 selected proposals were invited to submit the detailed information required
to complete the project negotiations. This would then enable the relevant dossier to be established,
a positive opinion to be obtained from the Programme Committee and funding to be approved by the
Commission. The approval of the Commission was given on 11 October 2002 (1) and on 22 November
2002 (2). Four contracts were launched before 31 December 2002. The delay that has occurred in
preparing the 27 remaining contracts for signature has been exceptional in nature.

It is regrettable that the contracts were not launched as initially planned. In order to be able to implement
projects correctly despite the delay, contractors have been given the possibility to adapt the road map of
each of the identified activities.

Given that the information about the contracts which have not been signed is dealt with on a decentralised
basis, it is not possible to give a statement by the required deadline. The Commission will provide further
information without fail and as soon as possible.

The amount of EUR 7 billion corresponds roughly to the amount of outstanding commitments (OCs) for
the research programmes. In accordance with the budget programming, it is planned to pay these at a
steady rate, for example, up to EUR 2 200 million for the Directorate-General for Research (DG RTD) for
2003.

It should be emphasised that this amount is quite small in relation to the annual budget for research policy
and that DG RTD has taken steps to ensure that this issue is being properly dealt with.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/733

DG RTD makes a detailed analysis of its requirements for payment appropriations for each financial year,
and then implements most of the budget (for example, 96 % in 2002). The risk of payment appropriations
being cancelled is therefore low. Moreover, DG RTD has set up instruments for monthly reporting on OCs
and is endeavouring to cancel the commitments for which payment appropriations are no longer required
as soon as possible.

(1) Decision number C(2002) 3710.
(2) Decision number C(2002) 4524.

(2004/C 78 E/0782)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece

In reply to my previous question regarding the media activities in Greece (E1775/02 (1)), the Commission
informed me that, in response to complaints, the Commission was investigating the complex and unclear
situation regarding broadcasting licensing and preferential treatment given to the public broadcasting body,
the ERT, by the Greek authorities.

Given the new and excessive increase being envisaged in fees levied by the Public Power Corporation on
behalf of the Greek public broadcasting body coupled with the latter’s increased share in earnings from
public and private advertising:

1. What were the Commission’s findings regarding the complaints, particularly in the light of the recent
judgement by the ECJ (C 53/2000 Ferring) concerning the illegality of subsidies exceeding the net
additional cost attributable to public service obligations and what measures have been taken to ensure
a transparent and irreproachable system of media licensing in Greece in accordance with Community
rules?

2. How will the Commission as guardian of the Treaties ensure effective monitoring of public service
obligations by broadcasters in Greece where no clear agreement exists between the State and the
is not
company concerned clearly defining its activities where the supervisory authority (ERS)
independent of the Government or the company concerned and no separate accounts are kept
indicating sources and amounts of income and expenditure in respect of non public service activities?

3. How will it ensure the smooth implementation of internal market rules governing the allocation of

State/public advertising and media subsidies in Greece?

4.

In how many and which Member States are fees levied by public power corporations and how is this
increase in fees payable to the public broadcasting body, coupled with its increased share of
advertising earnings, consistent with rules governing State aid, in particular for public broadcasting
services?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 224.