You are on page 1of 2

17. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/85

How does the Commission explain that such large countries as France, Spain and the United Kingdom receive
smaller subsidies for measures to benefit migrants than a small country like Belgium?

Are these amounts divided up for each country in the budget beforehand?

If so, what amounts are provided for ‘measures to benefit migrants’ in each country?

If not, what is the maximum amount provided for each country in the budget?

(98/C 82/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2460/97

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission
(16 July 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies

In 1996, 53 applications for subsidies relating to measures to benefit migrants in Belgium were approved. The
total amount involved was ECU 1 767 726.40 (budget item B96 B3-4110).

Can the Commission say how many of these 53 applications were received from Flemish applicants, how many
from Walloon applicants, how many from Dutch-speaking applicants in Brussels and how many from
French-speaking applicants in Brussels?

Can the Commission state how much money in absolute terms was allocated to projects of the French-speaking
community and how much to projects of the Dutch-speaking community?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2451/97, E-2452/97, E-2453/97, E-2454/97, E-2455/97,
E-2456/97, E-2457/97, E-2458/97, E-2459/97 and E-2460/97
given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1997)

Budget line B3-4110 supports measures to encourage the integration of migrants and their families in the
Member States. This support is granted in the form of co-funding, i.e. these actions must be part-financed by
national, regional or local public or private authorities. Hence Community support is not a substitute for support
which might be provided by the above-mentioned authorities, but supplements such support with a view to
implementing a specific measure. The measure supported must be innovative, have a multiplier effect, and clear
visibility and added value at Community level.

Funding applications are submitted by the interested bodies using a standard form. The eligibility conditions are
described in a practical guide. A copy of this practical guide, including the standard form, has been sent directly
to the Honourable Member as well as to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

There is no a priori breakdown between the Member States of the appropriations available under Budget line
B3-4110. The Commission makes a selection from the numerous applications purely on the basis of quality
considerations, bearing in mind the criteria and guidelines set out in the practical guide. The breakdown of
appropriations which may emerge a posteriori between Member States varies greatly from year to year – a fact
which should be interpreted with the utmost prudence, all the more so since a growing number of projects with a
promoter established in one Member State have a transnational dimension, and so it would be unfair to consider
that only one Member State stands to benefit from the appropriations for this project.

There is no a priori definition of the amount which may granted for a project. This amount is determined on the
basis of the requests received and the rules of good financial and administrative management, and so it varies
from project to project.

Funding requests addressed to the Commission are not public domain documents, and so the Commission cannot
provide copies of them, just as it cannot provide copies of their annexes, such as the applicant bodies' articles of
association. Generally speaking, the articles of association and the membership of the board of directors of
non-profit associations are published in the official journal of the Member State concerned.
C 82/86 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98

The application form and practical guide are available in the 11 Community languages. Requests may be
submitted to the Commission in the language of the applicant's choice.

Actions supported under Budget line B3-4110 are subject to internal evaluation, as well as to an ex-post audit by
the Commission, based on the reports received from the promoters and, where appropriate, on-the-spot visits.

(98/C 82/146) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2464/97

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 July 1997)

Subject: Rules on public contracts

There appear to be problems of interpretation and a need for clarification in regard to Directives 92/50 (1),
93/36 (2) and 93/37 (3) concerning the award of public contracts.

To what extent do the rules governing the award of public contracts also cover the public authorities’ use of
financial services? At present, the Member States interpret these rules differently. Italy, for example, does not
apply the rules in this area, whereas Denmark takes the view that they do apply in this respect.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1997)

Community rules on public procurement do, as a starting point, cover the use of financial services by the public
sector. In fact, in its Annex I A Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (1) mentions ‘Financial services’, which category explicitly
includes both a) insurance services and b) banking and investment services. Regarding banking and investment
services, Article 1(a)(vii) excludes ‘contracts for financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or
transfer of securities or other financial instruments, and central bank services’ from the scope of the Directive.

Regarding loans in particular, the Commission is of the opinion that a loan which is not issued in the form of a
negotiable security on the capital market is not comparable to a transferable instrument and, as such, is not
excluded from the scope of Article 1(a)(vii) of Directive 92/50/EEC, unless it is floated by a central bank.

It is, however, correct that the application of Directive 92/50/EEC to financial services is subject to differing
interpretations in various Member States. In order to ensure uniform interpretation of these provisions within the
Community which, as the Honourable Member states, is essential, the Commission has taken the initiative to
have this issue examined in the advisory committee for public contracts, in which all Member States are
represented. To that end, a working document, prepared by the Commission, has been discussed and a written
contribution requested from each Member State. Hitherto, only six Member States − Belgium, Germany, Ireland,
the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom − have contributed. It is nevertheless expected that the issue
will be settled in a forthcoming meeting of the advisory committee.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.