WRITTEN QUESTION P-2158/03 by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission. Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue.
Date: 2003-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, European Commission, France, Structural Funds, industrial restructuring, iron and steel industry, powers of the institutions (EU)

C 84 E/482

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In respect of how many projects under the 5th and 6th 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?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

In answer to the third part of his question, the Honourable Member will find below a list of unsigned
research contracts the assessment of which was completed over a year ago

This list only relates to the 5th framework programme (RTD). The question cannot apply to the
6th framework programme, for which implementation did not begin until the end of 2002.

(cid:1) ten individual grants in the ‘Human factor and mobility’ field;

(cid:1) twenty CRAFT projects in the Industrial Technologies field;

(cid:1) two projects in the Environment field;

(cid:1) four projects in the ‘Knowledge-based society and economy’ field.

In most cases, the delays are attributable to the contractors (contractor in liquidation, withdrawal, change
of details requiring a new entry in the third party ledger, etc.) or to the instability of partners within the
consortia (bankruptcy, change of priorities, change of partners or coordinator, etc.).

(2004/C 84 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2158/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue

The author of this question has duly noted the reply of 6 June 2003 which she has received from
Mrs Diamantopoulou (on behalf of the Commission) in respect of her question P-1696/03 (1), but she
would like to request
further information: namely, can the Commission object to the restructuring
envisaged on the Isbergue site if EU funding is received either by Arcelor or by the companies with which
Arcelor has sub-contracting arrangements?

(1) See page 474.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The answer to this question must set out the same principles already explained in the answer given on
6 June 2003 to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-1696/03.

The Commission cannot object to the restructuring of an industrial grouping based solely on whether this
group has or has not received assistance from the Structural Funds.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/483

for the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of

the Regulation (1) on the
However,
Structural Funds provides that if, within five years of the decision awarding assistance, an operation which
has received assistance from the Structural Funds undergoes a substantial modification affecting the nature
of the operation or its conditions of implementation, as a result of a cessation or change of location of an
activity, the provisions on financial corrections set out in Article 39 of the Regulation apply. In this case,
the Member State must inform the Commission and make the required financial corrections by cancelling
all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants
awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations were carried out and payments made on the
basis of the legislation in force.

(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 84 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Georgia

Knowing that:

(cid:1) On 15 June a demonstration organised by the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze blockaded a
for seven hours, preventing worshippers from attending a special

Pentecostal church in Tbilisi
Whitsun service.

(cid:1) The pastor Nicolai Kalatsky received death threats. The demonstrators were brought in by ten or more
vehicles between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and one of them admitted that the protest had been organised by
the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze.

(cid:1) The blockade by sixteen Orthodox vigilantes took place on the same day that a Baptist church was set

on fire in the village of Akhalsopeli in eastern Georgia.

(cid:1) In recent years Georgia has been the scene of violence against religious minorities perpetrated by

‘Orthodox vigilantes’, who seem to receive the full support of the authorities.

(cid:1) Although there have been hundreds of acts of violence nobody has been tried or convicted.

(cid:1) All over Georgia the authorities continue to attack religious minorities. On 1 June the police chief
Levan Chokheli raided a private home in the city of Gori and ordered a meeting of around
600 Jehovah’s Witnesses to be suspended.

In view of the excellent economic and commercial cooperation relations between the European Union and
Georgia, can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

(cid:1) what measures,

in the context of cooperation, might constitute a serious and effective way of

persuading Georgia to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is concerned by the problem of increased violations of religious freedom in Georgia. The
Commission welcomes the participation on 14 March 2003 of President Eduard Shevardnadze in an
Ecumenical service in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. At
this service, which was also attended by
representatives of the Commission’s Delegation and Member States, President Shevardnadze said for the