WRITTEN QUESTION E-4011/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding.
Date: 2004-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Commission Delegation, Roma, accession to the European Union, administration of the Institutions, distribution of aid, image

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?