WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Under-utilisation of payment appropriations.
Date: 2004-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU policy, Structural Funds, financial year, foreign policy, implementation of the budget, payment appropriation

C 78 E/898

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission’s Delegation in Dili, East Timor, has contacted the Prosecutor General who denied that
the files had been officially transferred to him. The Prosecutor General informed the victim’s relatives
accordingly, when he met them in October 2003 (when they travelled to Timor-Leste for the inauguration
of the ‘Balibo Flag House’ commemorating the Balibo five).

The Prosecutor General has assured the Commission’s Delegation in East Timor that he will continue the
investigation as soon as the case documents are transferred to him.

(2004/C 78 E/0949)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Under-utilisation of payment appropriations

(12 January 2004)

According to the recent annual report of the Court of Auditors of the European Union, under the 2002
budget a total of EUR 85 144 was disbursed in payment appropriations, out of an available total of
EUR 98 579. This represents a utilisation rate of 86,4 %.

This figure, together with those for the previous years (82,3 % for 2001, 87,9 % for 2000), confirms that
the under-utilisation of payment appropriations is endemic and is the rule, not the exception. The
mismatches appear primarily in category 2, one reason being that in the first years the programming stage
consumes considerable time, resources and energy. Despite this, can the Commission state how it
interprets the fact that under Internal Policies only 82,5 % of the payment appropriations available were
executed in 2002, or that under External Actions only 86 % were utilised in 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The 2002 overall implementation rate of payments was indeed 86 %, exceeding the 2001 rate of 82 %.

The under-implementation amounted to some EUR 13,1 billion, comprising mainly:

(cid:1) EUR 1,4 billion for Agriculture;

(cid:1) EUR 8,1 billion for the Structural Funds;

(cid:1) EUR 1,4 billion for Internal policies;

(cid:1) EUR 0,5 billion for External actions; and

(cid:1) EUR 0,9 billion for Pre-accession aid.

A detailed table providing the breakdown of the underimplementation of payments for:

(cid:1) the budgetary appropriations;

(cid:1) carryovers;

(cid:1) third party appropriations;

is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The main reason for the underimplementation of the structural
funds was that for the 1994-1999
programmes the actual implementation was lower than forecast by the Member States, whereas for the
new 2000-2006 programmes the implementation rate reached 91 % (compared to 70 % in 2001).

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/899

For Internal policies, about 50 % of the under-implementation of payments actually relate to third party
appropriations. For reasons of budgetary principles, these contributions have to be entered into the budget
together with the related commitments, even in cases where the payments will actually be made only in
subsequent years, when the programmes or projects are implemented. These appropriations are carried
over automatically to enable this. Without third party appropriations, the unused payments amounted to
some EUR 700 million, and mainly concerned ‘Research and development’ due to delays in legal
commitments and contractors’ cost statements. Overall, it has to be emphasised that the implementation of
payments increased in 2002 by a very substantial amount of almost EUR 1,3 billion, compared to 2001.

For External actions, the reason for the under-utilisation of payment appropriations was a combination of
programmes committed late in the year (implying related payments in the subsequent year) and an
increase in the payments’ budget by the Parliament over the Commission’s proposed PDB. The main
affected programmes were for ‘Cooperation with the Balkan countries’, ‘Assistance to partner countries in
eastern Europe and central Asia’, ‘Other Cooperation measures’, ‘Humanitarian aid’ and ‘Cooperation with
developing Latin American countries’. Overall, the implementation of payments for External actions
increased in 2002 by EUR 200 million, compared to 2001. The RAL has also been stabilised for external
actions, compared to the annual increases in the past.

Generally, payments are demand driven. As the main rule, the Commission can only make a payment after
the specific conditions for a payment have been met by the beneficiary, e.g., after a contract has been
signed, a project has progressed or been finalised and/or the beneficiary has submitted the final accounts
for the financial aid. By and large, these events are not under the Commission’s control. A prudent
financial management requires that
the Commission scrupulously controls such pre-conditions for
payments. As the budget for 2002 is mainly already established on the beginning of 2001, the forecasts
on when certain payments will actually take place is therefore based on quite a large degree of
uncertainties regarding external circumstances, implying a risk of over-budgeting, as was the case in 2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0950)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Optometry in Greece

The Greek Parliament recently voted to amend and complete legislation on the National Health Service and
to regulate other matters falling within the remit of the Ministry of Health and Welfare concerning the
activities of establishments selling optical products. Among other measures this legislation prohibits
opticians from practising optometry and allows pharmacists to sell presbyopic lenses and solutions for
contact lenses.

Is this provision banning opticians from practising optometry and permitting pharmacists to do so in line
with EU legislation?

Does the EU have rules determining which optical products may be sold exclusively by opticians?

Will the Commission say which authorities at Greek prefectural level are responsible for imposing the
sanctions provided by the law on opticians operating illegally?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

There are no specific Community rules governing the activity of either opticians or optometrists. As for
pharmacists, their activity has been the subject of two directives: Council Directives 85/432/EEC and 85/
433/EEC concerning, respectively,
the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and the mutual recognition of