WRITTEN QUESTION E-3973/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) ignored when allocating EU funds for social participation in Bulgaria.
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, Roma, accession to the European Union, distribution of aid, social integration, social participation

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/659

countries, already under strain, will be faced with even more daunting challenges. In this respect the
Commission has approved in 2000 an ambitious Action Plan on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis which
fosters an holistic approach to fight the pandemics which includes specific actions across all sectors of
society including agriculture. Governments are increasing reflecting this approach in their sector policies
and strategies.

(2004/C 88 E/0675)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Campaign in Bulgaria against distribution and management of funds for civil society development

by the EU delegation in Sofia and ways of assuaging the associated annoyance

Is the Commission aware that concern is growing in Bulgaria about the distribution and management
1.
of EU funds for civil society development, which is reflected in a campaign by members of Parliament
entitled ‘Clean hands for the non-profit sector’, the drafting of a law on transparency and involvement of
NGOs in the distribution of EU funds, publicity in Bulgarian newspapers, an e-mail bombardment under
the official concerned and proposed wider
the title ‘Isabel must go’, plans for legal action against
campaigns in January 2004?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the concern referred to above and the consequent campaigns are
particularly directed against the conduct of the civil society adviser at the EU delegation in Sofia, who is
accused of interfering unnecessarily with the internal decision-making of Bulgarian NGOs, basing her
decisions on the allocation of funds primarily on her own preferences, excluding critics of her policy from
the allocation of funds a priori and behaving in an arrogant and intimidating manner towards everyone
who disagrees with her?

3.
Does the Commission agree that, while this adviser’s behaviour may be said to have a positive aspect,
namely that she has succeeded in uniting Bulgarians, Turks and Roma in such a way that they are of one
opinion, it would be preferable for this to be achieved in some other manner than by inspiring unanimous
indignation at the conduct of one or more officials representing the EU?

4. What will the Commission do, in so far as possible and at the earliest opportunity, to assuage the
growing annoyance about the approach to the EU’s involvement in Bulgaria?

(2004/C 88 E/0676)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3973/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) ignored when allocating EU funds

for social participation in Bulgaria

Is

the Commission aware of

1.
the controversy surrounding Social Participation Programme
BG 0102.06, whose purpose is to support the social and economic integration of the Roma, other ethnic
in which connection, without consulting either the
minorities and people with disabilities in Bulgaria,
National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) or the Ministry of Culture, as stipulated, the
EU delegation in Sofia unilaterally took a final decision on the allocation of EUR 7 million, namely that
EUR 2 500 000 should be spent on civil society development and EUR 4 500 000 on integration of the
Roma and people with disabilities?

2. Why was it that, as a result of the above decision, out of the 20 proposed projects those selected did
not include the improvement of the 12 best Roma cultural and information centres but a centre in Sofia, a
centre in Sliven and two centres in the coastal settlement of Varna, in which connection the assessment of
the urgency of the last of these projects caused particular astonishment and serious disappointment,
especially in the country’s second city, Plovdiv, which has a large Roma population?

C 88 E/660

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In consequence, must the Bulgarian Ministry of Social Affairs, as from 1 December 2003, make

3.
payments to projects which other observers regard as subsidies to the mafia?

4.
Is it still possible to reverse this extremely controversial decision or to compensate in some other
way the projects which were placed at a disadvantage by it? What will the Commission do to limit the
damage?

(2004/C 88 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4011/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the

proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding

1.
Can the Commission confirm that in preparation for the implementation of the social participation
programme BG 0102.06 in 2001 the EU’s delegation in Sofia received 20- or 30-page proposals (project
sheet) on the basis of which PHARE appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 would be paid out to assist 12
existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide teaching in reading, writing and arithmetic
for 4 500 Roma?

2. Why did one of the bodies included in the proposals, the Napredak Foundation in Pazardžik, where,
according to official statistics which are in all probability much too low, 24 000 Roma live, receive
nothing, whereas large sums were reportedly allocated to Varna, where only 13 000 Roma are registered?

3. Why were the proposals concerning the centres in Plovdiv (26 000 Roma according to official
statistics) and other, smaller towns where many poor Roma live likewise rejected?

4. Why were the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (according to its chief expert,
Lalo Kamenov) and the Ministry of Culture completely taken aback by this decision, even though up to
now they have played an important role in project-related decision-making?

5.
Is the role of the National Council referred to in question 4 restricted to the drafting of criteria to
govern the allocation of funding, with all decisions on the basis of those criteria being taken elsewhere?
Who scrutinises such decisions?

6. What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and
desirable?

(2004/C 88 E/0678)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4012/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: late announcement of decisions and

controversial payment arrangements

1. Why was the start of the projects approved under the social participation programme BG 0102.06
postponed from November 2002 to December 2003, and were organisations whose projects had been
approved on the morning of 1 December 2003 given only until 17.00 the same day to sign contracts?

2. Was the Roma youth organisation in Sliven, which is situated 300 km from Sofia, informed only at
14.00 on 1 December 2003 that it had been granted a subsidy, with the result that a proportion of the
funding available ended up in the hands of individuals outside that organisation’s control?