WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/04 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. Structural Fund decommitments in Scotland.
Date: 2004-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Scotland, Structural Funds, commitment of expenditure, regional aid, structural expenditure

C 84 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission does not accept that there is a lack of co-ordination with regard to wildlife trade policies
or that Spain is a gateway for species rejected by other Member States. The provisions in place in Spain are
no less strict than in any of the other Member States. With regard to trade in endangered species of flora
and fauna, all Member States are bound by the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of
9 December 1997, on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1). This
Regulation is intended to ensure a common implementation of CITES among the Member States and the
perceived lapse in this case is not due to any flaw in its provisions.

Bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are listed on Annex A of the Regulation. This means that
import of wild dolphins is allowed only if the purpose is primarily non-commercial (cid:1) breeding, education
or research, for example. Even then, it must be established that the import will not have a detrimental
effect on the conservation status of the species and (cid:1) in the case of live animals (cid:1) that the intended
accommodation is adequate. Movement of the animal to another Member State is only allowed when the
latter Member State has also verified that the intended use is non-commercial and that the accommodation
is adequate.

if Portugal rejected the import application on the grounds that the intended use was
In this case,
commercial or
then these
considerations still apply if the animal is transferred from Spain. If Portugal had wished to prevent the
transfer on these grounds, this lay within its powers under the system.

the intended accommodation for

the specimen was

inadequate,

that

Where a Member State prohibits an import on the grounds that it will have a detrimental conservation
effect, they are obliged to inform the Commission who, in turn, brings the decision to the attention of the
Scientific Review Group convened under Article 17 of the Regulation where this decision is either
confirmed or reversed on the basis of the collective expert opinion of the Member States. In the present
case, the Commission was not informed of any decision by Portugal to reject an import application for
bottle-nosed dolphins from Cuba on these grounds. As a result, Spain was left free to make its own
judgement on this issue.

(1) As last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1497/2003 of 18 August 2003, OJ L 215, 27.8.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Structural Fund decommitments in Scotland

Further to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-2263/03 (1) with regard to structural funding,
in which it was stated that the Commission would be in a position to determine the potential amounts of
decommitment from the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme under the ‘N+2’ rule after
31 December 2003, can the Commission now provide such information?

Furthermore, is the Commission yet able to provide information on any decommitments resulting from the
Structural Funds programmes in Scotland for the period 1994-1999?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 240.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/155

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions
on the Structural Funds (1) provides for the Commission to decommit any part of the commitment of the
year ‘n’ that has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable
payment application at the end of the year ‘n+2’.

For the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme by the end of 2002 all the Structural Funds
met the N+2 rule with the exception of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
whose payments on account or acceptable payment applications submitted for assistance were lower than
the amounts committed in 2000. The unused part of that commitment was, therefore, to be decommitted.

The Commission, having consulted the United Kingdom authorities, has determined that the sum in
question in relation to the EAGGF is from the 2000 commitment EUR 2 026 960,77.

The financial tables of the Single Programming Document were amended accordingly by Decision C
(2003) 5280 of 19 December 2003 to take into account such a decommitment of EAGGF assistance.

Concerning 2001 commitments of the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme, no decom-
mitment for any of the Structural Funds under the ‘N+2’ rule is foreseen.

With regard to the programming period 1994-1999, the Commission wrote to the Scottish authorities on
22 August 2003 and 24 October 2003 to propose the decommitment of a European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) amount of EUR 82 882 223,64 corresponding to the unused part of the
appropriations allocated to Scottish programmes, following provisional calculations on the basis of final
payment claims submitted. The Scottish authorities have agreed that this is the correct figure. The above
amount has been decommitted.

The breakdown of programmes affected by these decommitments is as follows:

(in euros)

ERDF No

Title

Decommitment

970913004

DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2 97-99

34 131 448,00

970913003

DOCUP EASTERN SCOTLAND OBJ2 97-99

940913009

GRAMPIAN (OBJ5B)

16 742 618,00

206 849,00

940913018

DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2

31 801 308,64

Total

82 882 223,64

Moreover, in addition to the above amount, EUR 1 040 915,25 of ERDF assistance has been decommitted
for the 1994-1996 Eastern Scotland Objective 2 Programme upon closure.

Regarding the other Scottish programmes, no further programme has been closed since the Commission
replied to the Honourable Member’s written question P-2263/03. Therefore, only when all the documents
are assessed (cid:1) including the audit control statements (cid:1) and the closure process is completed, will the
Commission be in a position to determine the total amounts allocated to Scotland to be decommited.

Such closure would, however, be without prejudice to any later decisions that might arise cancelling or
reducing assistance and ordering the reimbursement of monies wrongfully paid out. Such decisions may be
necessary pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 4253/1988 (2), as amended, or due to infringement

C 84 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

procedures opened pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, State Aid procedures and corrections which
may prove necessary following the findings of future audits of the expenditure declared.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1105/2003 of 26 May 2003, OJ L 158,

27.6.2003.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and
with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
instruments, OJ L 374,
31.12.1988.

(2004/C 84 E/0193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/04

by Giorgio Calò (ELDR)
and Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany

On the basis of the internal rules of the Max Planck Society in Germany foreign research students, unlike
their German fellow students, do not have access to the regular employment contract BAT IIa/2, but
receive a grant (‘Stipendium’), which is tax-free and not subject to social security contributions.

This discrimination affects hundreds of foreign students, most of them from Community countries, and
naturally has substantial repercussions on guarantees and rights in the areas of social security and health.

The Max Planck Society, 80 % of whose funding comes from public sources, is bound by the principles of
the Constitution and the founding principles of the Treaty concerning non-discrimination, freedom of
movement and residence, freedom of establishment and equal opportunities.

In view of the blatant violation of these principles, can the Commission intervene by adopting urgent
measures to ensure that the aforementioned discriminatory treatment of Community research students in
Germany is discontinued?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

EU nationals have the right to work in other Member States (Article 39 of the EC Treaty). This right to free
movement of workers includes the right to have equal access to jobs and equal treatment in relation to
working conditions as compared to the nationals of the host Member State.

On the basis of Article 39 nationals of other Member States must, therefore, be allowed to apply for
research positions for which an employment contract is offered (like the positions under BAT IIa/2 as
concerned in the written question) at the German Max Planck Society in the same way as German
nationals.

According to the information of the Commission, nationals of other Member States are equally entitled to
apply for research posts (e.g. Doktorandenstellen). In the job-offers for Doktorandenstellen currently put
online at the homepage of the Max Planck Society (23 January 2004) no nationality condition is stipulated.

In order to be able to further evaluate if the facts contained in the written question might constitute a
breach of Community law, the Honourable Members are therefore invited to send more information to the
Commission (Directorate-General Employment and Social Affairs), including information about the cases of
the non-German EU nationals who were refused application for such a Doktorandenstelle on the basis of
their nationality or who have obtained such a post but without the working conditions as foreseen for
BAT IIa/2 employees.