WRITTEN QUESTION P-0407/04 by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. CRAFT Community programmes.
Date: 2004-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, administration of the Institutions, administrative formalities, contract, deadline for payment, research project, small and medium-sized enterprises, use of languages

C 84 E/784

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

a proposal for a new policy to give millions of irregular workers legal status. Although the implementation
of this decision by the US President may in some respects be open to criticism, there is no doubt that it
marks a major step forward in resolving an extremely serious economic and humanitarian problem. Has
the Commission planned any similar political initiative to legalise the presence of irregular immigrants in
the Union? If so, what type of initiative would it be?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In order to implement the Treaty of Amsterdam and the mandate given in Tampere, the Commission has
tabled several proposals for directives concerning the admission and the conditions of stay of third-country
nationals.

Until now, none of these proposals contained provisions on the regularisation of the legal status of illegal
immigrants already within the territory of the European Union and no such proposal is envisaged in the
near future.

The Commission has stated in its Communication on immigration, integration and employment (1) that
within the context of the common immigration policy the only coherent approach to dealing with illegal
residents is to ensure that they return to their country of origin. Some Member States have implemented
regularisation measures for illegal residents. Regularisation procedures may be seen as a factor which
enables the integration process to develop but also as an encouragement of further illegal immigration.

Bearing in mind these potential impacts, the issue of regularisation will be examined in the study on the
links between legal and illegal migration that will be released by the Commission during the present Irish
Presidency.

(1) COM(2003) 336 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0881)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0407/04

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: CRAFT Community programmes

Since the 1990s, the European Union has been financing so-called CRAFT projects through its successive
Community R + D programmes. The purpose of these projects as to support the needs of SMEs in R + D,
facilitate transnational cooperation between SMEs on R + D, and to encourage cooperation cooperation
between SMEs and European research.

CRAFT has enabled many SMEs from throughout the European Union to come together to set up R + D
projects. Hence its sheer importance.

However, now that Europe has embarked on a multi-annual programme in favour of companies, and
particularly SMEs, with the particular goal of simplifying the legislative, administrative and financial
measures which concern them, it appears that Europe itself no longer feels this burning obligation. The
paperwork required to obtain European aid is more and more complex to handle, and once the submission
has been accepted, payment
takes a long time, which discourages SMEs. Such, accordingly to my
information, is the case of CRAFT.

For that reason, even if strict rules are necessary in order for European funding to be agreed, could the
Commission itself not make an effort to achieve administrative simplification, in collaboration with the
SMEs, so that all Europe’s SMEs can benefit from such programmes, whose importance requires no
demonstration?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/785

With particular regard to CRAFT:

(cid:1) Would it not be possible for SMEs to obtain the relevant contracts from the Commission in their own
languages, so as to avoid any doubts which may arise from unofficial translations, or the need to use a
language which they are not fully cognisant with, even if the contract itself is signed in English?

(cid:1) Would it not be possible to ask the research centres simply to put in their bills Proforma, and thus

save themselves VAT problems?

(cid:1) Could the Commission not commit itself to a maximum delay in paying-out of three months, since

any longer period creates difficulties for the cash offices of SMEs?

(cid:1) Would it not be reasonable to reduce the deadlines for signing by the Commission’s lawyers to two

months for adding possible riders?

(cid:1) Finally, would it not be appropriate to redefine the role of the Scientific Officers as that of mediators,
with the obligation to ensure that CRAFT rules are respected, but by helping the SMEs rather than
cracking down on them?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

In relation to the calls for Co-operative Research Projects within the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), the
Commission understands the particular needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to achieve an
optimal and efficient procedure in processing research project applications and approving those projects
which are successful in obtaining Community financing.

With particular regard to the question of the Honourable Member on CRAFT Community Programmes,
the Commission would like to indicate the following:

(cid:1) The contracts between the Commission and the Consortia are implemented in English since it is
usually chosen as the working language of the Partners involved within the consortia, which average
eight in number. Translations of the FP6 model contract are, however, available in all eleven official
languages on the Europa and Cordis websites to facilitate the understanding of the contracts by the
consortia
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/
index_en.html or http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm and choose download links within subheading
‘Model contract’ under title Essential Documents).

partners.

See:

(cid:1) Under FP5 SME specific activities, Research and Technological Development

(RTD) performers
(Research Centres) acted as subcontractors to the SME partners. In that context, they invoice the SME
the price of their service, thus leading to an incurred cost for the SME partners which the Community
reimburses in part. As Proforma invoices do not justify a cost from a financial accounting perspective
and as it might open the door to incorrect application of the national legislation of the Member States,
RTD performers were requested to provide a proper invoice including VAT.

Under FP6, the RTD performers are contractors like the SME partners, that is, direct beneficiaries of
the grant awarded by the Community. Accordingly, they charge directly their eligible costs incurred in
relation to their activities. No invoices are required of RTD performers under FP6.

(cid:1) For FP6 the Commission has made serious efforts to shorten the time for committing and signing
contracts and for approving and processing payments. The Commission is now contractually obliged
to make the Community financial contribution to projects as pre-financing within 45 days of the
entry into force of the contract and for subsequent payments within 45 days following approval by
the Commission of the reports relating to each reporting period. The co-ordinator is thereafter
contractually obliged to distribute the Community contribution to the other consortium partners on
the basis of the provisions of their consortium agreement. In a case where the deadline is not met by
the Commission interest payments can be claimed by the contractors via the Co-ordinator.

C 84 E/786

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(cid:1) FP6 has introduced a new financial and legal framework for SME activities. By contrast with other
FP6 instruments, there is no collective financial responsibility among the partners of SME activities,
thus leading to the implementation of controls required by the Financial Regulation (1) of
the
Community. However, the Commission intends to significantly reduce the cycle time from project
proposal selection to contract preparation, signature and payment of the Community pre-financing.

(cid:1) The Commission aim at providing assistance to SME’s in a way which responds best to their needs.
In order to facilitate the constitution of consortia and the elaboration of proposals for research
contracts, the Commission contributes actively through the organisation or the participation to
information sessions and brokerage events, and the maintenance of help desks on technical, legal or
financial issues related to FP6 contracts, within the limits and full respect of financial and management
requirements.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0408/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands

Directive 2002/49/EC (1) on the management of environmental noise requires every Member State to make
environmental noise maps for all major airports which have more than 50 000 movements per year.

Correspondence between the Netherlands Government and the Second Chamber
the
Netherlands is planning to make an environmental noise map and draw up an accompanying action plan
solely in respect of Schiphol Airport.

shows that

Movement data provided by the Central Statistical Office in 2001 show a different picture. The airports in
Rotterdam (92 874), Groningen (61 324) and Maastricht (58 534) are already above the 50 000 limit, while
Lelystad, with 47 135 movements, has almost reached the critical threshold.

Can the European Commission publish a definitive list of all the airports in the Netherlands which have
more than 50 000 movements?

What will the Commission do if the Netherlands remains in breach of its obligations?

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has been interested to note the Written Question from the Honourable Member
concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1) in the Netherlands.

In accordance with 7(1) of
the Directive, Member States have until 30 June 2005 to inform the
Commission about the airports situated within their territory which are covered by the scope of the
Directive. These airports are defined in Article 3(p) of the Directive as ‘civil airports, designated by the
Member State, which have more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a
landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft’.