WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/99 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU grant funding.
24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/51 provide a cross border service without being required to establish, and to the recipients of services (such as patients receiving health services). National requirements that hospitals should be non-profit making are compatible with the EC Treaty. The Court of justice confirmed this principle already enshrined in Article 48 (2) (ex Article 58) of EC Treaty in the case Sodemareí (case C-70/95, judgement of 17. 6. 1997, ECR I 3395). Other restrictions need to be examined in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court in the Kohllí case (C-158/96, judgement of 28. 4. 1998, ECR I 1931) which refers to public health considerations, and more particularly, the need to maintain a balanced medical and hospital service open to all as well as to a specific overriding public interest linked to the need to avoid seriously undermining the financial viability of the social security system concerned. Quantitative restrictions or preferential arrangements must be compatible with these requirements. In any event, they may not lead, in law or de facto, to discrimination between citizens of the Union. As for the possibility for citizens of the Union to exercise economic activities in the health services sector under Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty, as regards employed activities in hospitals the conditions for employment are laid down by the Member States. However, domestic rules must comply with Community law, in particular Council Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2) on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC (3), 78/686/EEC (4), 80/154/EEC (5), 85/433/EEC (6) and 93/16/EEC (7) concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas of respectively nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, midwife, pharmacist and doctor. (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989. (2) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992. (3) OJ L 176, 15. 7. 1977. (4) OJ L 233, 24. 8. 1978. (5) OJ L 33, 11. 2. 1980. (6) OJ L 253, 24. 9. 1985. (7) OJ L 165, 7. 7. 1993. (2000/C 303 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/99 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: EU grant funding What is the procedure for remunerating the intermediary bodies (private companies contracted to the European Commission) who administer European grant funds? On average, what percentage of the funds does such remuneration represent? Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (25 February 2000) Intermediary bodies which provide the Commission with technical or administrative assistance for the management of Community funds under a private-law contract can be paid in two ways: either by a lump sum covering all services, where no additional cost can be invoiced to the Commission (with the exception of costs relating to ad hoc audits required by the Commission), or on a time-rate basis, possibly containing flat-rate sums, in which case refundable costs may also be charged (travel, cost of equipment, overheads and audit costs). Payment for services is calculated on the basis of the specifications annexed to the contract within the limits of the estimate. An original invoice must be produced for each payment. Costs are reimbursed on the basis of original supporting documents or certified true copies. C 303 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Where the specifications authorise the contractor to take on independent, external experts, the cost of the experts are charged on a flat-rate basis per actual dayís work. The Contractor is required to ensure that the experts fulfil the same obligations as those applicable to his staff and he sends the Commission a copy of the agreements signed with his staff, while ensuring that the time declared as worked had actually being worked. From an internal inspection carried out in 1997 on the basis of a sample of the technical assistance offices, it emerged that, on average, payment of these intermediary bodies accounted for almost 30 % of the funds which they helped manage and 3,8 % of the total budget for the programmes in question. However, these estimate need to be qualified in order to place the percentages in the proper context. Data relating to the payment of these intermediary bodies is based on commitment rather than on payment appropriations with the result that the real cost may have been overestimated. In addition, appropriations, committed in respect of contracts with these bodies often cover periods exceeding 12 months and are thus used to pay for services relating to the management of appropriations during the following years. Accordingly, the proportion of payments from appropriations for a given year can be overstated. Some of the technical assistance offices covered by the inspection did not have as their main task the management of Community grants, but rather provided services in support of programme implementation, such as checking and monitoring the programme, organising conferences and seminars, disseminating information relating to the programme or gathering and processing data, with the result the proportion of costs of payments from the funds managed by the intermediary bodies can seem relatively high. that No specific distinction is made for funds which finance Community grants. (2000/C 303 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/99 by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Environmental impact of enlargement The enlargement of the European Union will become a reality in the next few years. Negotiations are currently being held with six countries, and after the Helsinki summit these negotiations will be expanded to include all 12 candidate countries. During the negotiation process the future members will have to adapt their administration and legislation to comply with EU rules. One major and economically important challenge will be to make progress in improving the state of the environment and adopting an environmental policy in accordance with sustainable development. What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the environment is included as a priority in the negotiations, and what attitude does the Commission propose to take to the granting of transitional periods on environmental issues? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission The Commission shares the opinion of environment environmental acquis is a great challenge. in the applicant states and the alignment of the legislation of improving the state of the these states with the (18 February 2000) the Honourable Member that Environment is a priority in the accession process. The negotiation position of the Union at the opening of the negotiations with Hungary, Cyprus, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic explicitly refers to the objective of a high level of nuclear safety and environmental protection