WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, European Regional Development Fund, Germany, road building

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/721

(2004/C 88 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1007/04

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Breakdown of the POSEI item in the 2004 Budget

(25 March 2004)

Until 2004,
the Community’s annual budget allocated, under the EAGGF-Guarantee framework, a
budgetary line to each POSEI, establishing two sub-items within each: one on ‘Supply’ and another on
‘Other measures’, i.e. support for local production. I am speaking about Item B1-320 Poseidom (B1-3200
Supply and B1-3201 Other measures), B1-321 Poseima (B1-3210 Supply and B1-3211 Other measures)
and B1-322 Poseican (B1-3220 Supply and B1-3221 Other measures).

As a result of the changes to the structure of the 2004 Budget, the POSEIs budgetary items have been
globalised and unified within the framework of Title 05 on agricultural and rural development, in Item 05
02 11 04, which also contains the amounts for the Aegean Islands and other amounts, e.g. subsidies for
rice supplies to Reunión, which were formerly separate. This system entails the loss of the previous clarity
and transparency, since the quantities assigned to each POSEI can no longer be distinguished, and within
the aforementioned sub-items. Given that
each of
implementation for 2002 also appears in globalised form, it is likewise impossible to work out what was
implemented within each POSEI.

the amounts assigned to each of

the latter,

What is the amount assigned to Poseican for budgetary year 2004?

Of this amount, how much is earmarked for the Specific Supply Arrangements and how much to Support
measures for local production?

What was the total of the amounts actually paid out in 2002 and 2003 for the Specific Supply
Arrangements on the one hand, and for other Poseican measures on the other?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The 2004 appropriation for the Poseican programme is EUR 137 million: EUR 103 million for the special
supply arrangements and EUR 34 million for support for local production.

Actual expenditure in 2002 and 2003 was:

(cid:1) Special supply arrangements:

(cid:1) 2002: EUR 88,8 million;

(cid:1) 2003: EUR 84,7 million.

(cid:1) Other measures:

(cid:1) 2002: EUR 19,5 million;

(cid:1) 2003: EUR 26,8 million.

(2004/C 88 E/0742)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to problems relating to the reconstruction of the Land-
administered road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony. These problems have been the subject of a petition

C 88 E/722

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

to the European Parliament (364/2000), which was registered on 25 May 2000 and last discussed by the
Committee on Petitions on 20 February 2003. The Committee is still awaiting the information requested
from the relevant authorities in Germany.

Over the four years since the petition was submitted and during which the road S 282 A was completed,
an increasing number of conflicting pieces of information have come to light.

Firstly, contradictory statements have been made with regard to the cost.

In a letter of 23 May 2003 to Mr Nino Gemelli (Chairman of the Committee on Petitions), the German
ambassador Dr Schönfelder (Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU) confirmed that
the
extension of the road S 282 A would cost EUR 50 million, referring to information from German
authorities.

In a letter of 19 May 2003 to Mr Iltgen, President of Saxony’s state parliament, the total cost of
constructing the road was estimated by Saxony’s State Minister of Economic Affairs and Labour at
EUR 4,63 million. Just a few weeks later (on 4 July 2003), in reply to the same question, the Minister
informed Mr Iltgen that the cost would be only EUR 4,3 million.

In addition, it is suspected that the reconstruction of the road S 282 A was intentionally declared to be an
‘extension’ although this was not the case, as only one year after the road was completed it was
downgraded from the original
to the ‘regional’ category
(classification III).

‘supraregional’ category (classification II)

Can the Commission state whether and to what extent it is aware of these conflicting facts and, if it is not
aware of them, whether it intends to carry out on-the-spot investigations?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barrot on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2004)

According to the information which the Commission received from the management authority on
16 April 2004 in Saxony, the situation of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) investments in
the project quoted by the Honourable Member is as follows.

The street, Staatsstraße 282 A, has been reconstructed with support from the ERDF. The planning
envisaged a total cost of EUR 9,081 million. Up to now EUR 5,3 million has been spent with some
EUR 0,705 million to follow. The ERDF is contributing 75 % of the total cost.

The Commission is informed that inconsistencies might have arisen in the presentation of the figures
regarding this project because they were given at different points in time and relate therefore to the
situation at different stages of implementation.

As regards the change in grade of the street, the programme management authority has informed the
Commission that the street in question was upgraded from local level in 1997 to state level. It has not
been downgraded.

(2004/C 88 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/04

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: The smaller European Schools

In its resolution of 17 December 2002, the European Parliament stated that the European Schools foster a
sense of European identity and European integration. Yet various smaller European Schools are threatened
with closure. The European Parliament also took the view that ways of cooperating (inter alia financially)
with local, regional or national authorities should be explored, in which connection linguistic diversity
should remain a priority.