Parltrack

Activites

• 2011/10/31 Follow-up document
  • COM(2011)0693 summary

    The Commission presents its 22nd annual report on the implementation of the Structural Funds (2010) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. It covers the activities linked to Structural Funds Budget. 2010 was the eleventh year in which Structural Funds programmes and projects for the 2000-2006 programming period were implemented. Altogether 7181 operational programmes were managed in 2010. In 2010, the closure process began for the majority of the 2000-2006 operational programmes. The recovery package proposed by the Commission in response to the financial crisis allowed for an extension of six (or twelve) months to be granted on a programme-by-programme basis for those Member States, which opted for it. This flexibility allowed Member States and regions to maximise the absorption of the allocated funds by addressing unexpected programme implementation challenges and, consequently, achieve the objectives of the programmes. In addition to the implementation of 2000-2006 Structural Funds programmes and projects and preparation for their closure, the Commission was also heavily involved in the implementation of 434 programmes (317 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), 117 European Social Fund (ESF)) of the 2007-2013 period in 2010. In order to be able to demonstrate the added value of European cohesion policy, the Commission carried out several ex post evaluations, which are described in the report. The report looks at budget and programme implementation, and describes control and monitoring activity. Budget Implementation ERDF: in spite of the financial downturn, 2010 was an excellent year in terms of budgetary execution. The overall absorption rate reached 100.0% or EUR 1,693 million reimbursed to operational programmes. For the entire 2000-2006 period, EUR 123,339 million have been paid to Member States as of 31 December 2010. This represents an average absorption rate for all Member States of 95.2% of the EUR 129,600 million overall allocation. Most of the remaining payments concern payments of the final balances for the closure of programmes. At the end of 2010, commitments from previous years on which payments were still to be made (RAL) amounted to EUR 6,719 million for ERDF compared with EUR 8,400 million at end of 2009. This represents 5.2% of the total amount committed for ERDF. A further decrease of the RAL is foreseen with the payment of final balances upon closure of the programmes. In 2010, as in the previous year, the ‘n+2’ rule did not apply. As a general rule, the last commitment tranche (i.e. 2006) will be used to execute final payments once the closure of the programme is agreed between the Member State and the Commission. Accordingly, the amount to be de-committed will only be calculated at the closure stage of the operational programmes. ESF: for the 2000-2006 programming period, the payment credits consumption during 2010 reached EUR 319 million. This corresponds to 26.42 % of the annual payment credits allocation. This is due to the fact most of the programmes have reached the 95% threshold and the remaining balance will only be paid in the context of closure of the programmes which is currently on-going. The total outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of 2010 stood at EUR 3,004 million (compared to EUR 4,700 million in 2009). This represents 4.38% of total commitments for the period 2000-2006. The RAL has been consumed by interim payments, a few final payments and an automatic de-commitment of the unused RAL has been processed for an amount of EUR 1,460 million under the closure exercise. In 2010, as in the previous year, the ‘n+2’ rule did not apply and the RAL has been decreased by de-commitments for the programming period 2000-2006 at the closure of the operational programmes. For the whole period, at the end of 2010 EUR 64,118 million have been paid to Member States. This represents an absorption rate for all Member States of 93.47% of the EUR 68,600 million overall allocations. EAGGF: the total amount paid in 2010 was EUR 168.3 million or 30.7% of the budget available at the end of the year (an amount of EUR 13.9 million was transferred during the year to other budget lines outside the EAGGF). The execution rate as regards the initial budget for payment appropriations would be 29.9%. In absolute terms, the amount paid in 2010 is far below the amount paid in 2009 (by EUR 300 million). The report sets out the main reasons for this, noting, inter alia, that the low EAGGF-Guidance expenditure in 2010 was very largely compensated by EUR 11.12 billion of EAFRD expenditure under the rural development programming 2007-2013 (which is EUR 2.91 billion more than in the year 2009). 
 FIFG: the overall absorption rate for payments was 100%, with EUR 10 million being disbursed to Member States. 
Concerning the execution level of payment appropriations, EUR 10 million was paid under Objective 1. No payment was made outside Objective 1. The total RAL for the FIFG at the end of 2010 reached EUR 296.44 million (compared with EUR 306.41 million in 2009). This represents 7.5% of total commitments for the period 2000-2006. For the whole period, as at the end of 2010, EUR 3,639 million have been paid to Member States. This represents an absorption rate for all Member States of 92.5% of the EUR 3,935 million overall allocations. Programme Implementation Objective 1: programmes focused on basic infrastructure projects (40.2%), with almost half of all investment in this category spent on transport infrastructure (49.9%). More than a third (34.9%) of Objective 1 resources was invested in the productive environment where the focus continues to be on assisting SME and the craft sector (26.6%) where as human resources supported projects account for 22.5% of resources. Objective 2: the main focus of programmes in Objective 2 regions continues to be on the productive investments, with over half of all financial resources devoted to this category (55.4%) mostly targeting the SME and craft sector. The second most supported field is basic infrastructure, with 29.2% of all Objective 2 resources. In the category of human resources to which 10.5% or resources were devoted, workforce flexibility and entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication technologies are the main fields of investment. Objective 3: ESF programme implementation in 2010 continued to be focused on the European Employment Strategy, particularly on the measures aimed at improving employability in the labour market (30.9% of certified expenditure), lifelong learning (activities developing educational and vocational training represented 31.2 % of certified expenditure), social inclusion (13.3 % of certified expenditure), equal opportunities (5.2 % of certified expenditure) and entrepreneurial activities, workforce flexibility, innovation, information and communication technologies (19.05%). Fisheries outside Objective 1: expenditure of the FIFG programmes outside Objective 1 focussed on processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products (26.7%). The second most important measure was adjustment of the fishing effort (17.8%), followed by the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet (17.5%), fishing port facilities (16.9%) and actions by professionals (vocational training, small coastal fishing) (12.8%).

  • SEC(2011)1308 summary

    In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Commission presents this report setting out an overview of the implementation of the Structural Funds (2000-2006) in 2010. It notes that 2010 was the eleventh year in which Structural Funds programmes and projects for the 2000-2006 programming period were implemented. Altogether 226 Objective 1 and Objective 2, 47 Objective 3, 12 Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) (outside Objective 1), 81 INTERREG, 71 URBAN, 27 EQUAL, 73 LEADER+ and 181 Innovative Action programmes were managed in 2010. Even though no further commitments could be made in 2010, sums were disbursed in respect of 2000-2006 Structural Funds assistance. Implementation of the 2010 budget was excellent. In terms of payment appropriations, 100.0% of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), 97.0% of the European Social Fund (ESF), 30.7% of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)-Guidance budget available at the end of 2010 (after a reduction of EUR 13.9 million and 100.0% of FIFG resources were used (compared to 100.0% ERDF, 97.0% ESF, 97.9% EAGGF and 69.5% FIFG in 2009). The recovery package proposed by the Commission in response to the financial crisis allowed for an extension of six (or twelve) months to be granted on a programme-by-programme basis for those Member States, which opted for it. This flexibility allowed Member States and regions to maximise the absorption of the allocated funds by addressing unexpected programme implementation challenges and, consequently, achieve the objectives of the programmes.

• 2004/09/06 Follow-up document
  • COM(2004)0580 summary

    The European Commission has prepared a legal examination detailing and assessing the separation of responsibility between the Community and Member States for managing the Structural and Cohesion Fund's budget. The Report scrutinizes the procedures through which, in co-operation with the Member States, the Commission can discharge its general responsibility for the implementation of the budget. The first part of the Communication examines in some detail the current rules governing the Structural and Cohesion Funds in order to clarify the shared management responsibilities of each party. The second part of the report sets out the general guidelines adopted in July 2004. These guidelines formed the basis for the legislative proposal, which the Commission later adopted. The purpose of the guidelines was to increase the coherence, complementarity and efficiency of implementing the budget. This includes, for example, clarifying the Member State's obligation to co-operate - and the consequences for them if they fail to do so. In the Communication, the Commission takes on board a number of suggestions proposed by the Court of Auditors regarding its responsibility to discharge and implement the budget. The Court of Auditors, for example, considers that the Commission should have the role of supervising operations both by defining the minimum requirements for them and by co-coordinating the objectives to be achieved as well as their implementation at all levels - i.e. national and Community. Although the Commission points to a number of measures it has taken to improve the efficiency of co-operation with the Member States it, nevertheless, acknowledges that more could be done. In order to address some of the shortcomings identified, the Commission has adopted a set of proposals to cover the reference period 2007-2013. In its proposal, the Commission suggests that the extent of its involvement in the checks should be proportionate to the assessed level of risk of irregularities. On a similar vein, the Commission proposes that the degree of Community intervention in the management and control procedures should also depend on the size of the Community contribution to the assistance. To conclude, the report notes that greater management efficiency and simplification with financial checks should be accompanied by heavier penalties and measures to ensure rapid recovery in the event of irregularities or fraud. The consequences for not applying transparent rules regarding financing should be suitably severe. The rules should also include arrangements for the Commission to make financial corrections in cases where Member States fail to take adequate steps to comply with their obligations. Nor should the Commission hesitate to make use of procedures under Articles 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty in cases where Member States' have failed to fulfill their obligations.

• 2003/08/25 Follow-up document
  • COM(2003)0499 summary

    This is the Communication from the Commission on the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund revised indicative guidelines. Under Article 10(3), of Council Regulation 1260/1999/EC laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the Commission on 1 July 1999 adopted general indicative guidelines on the Structural Funds based on the relevant agreed Community policies. These guidelines were aimed at assisting national and regional authorities in the Member States in preparing their programming strategies under Structural Fund Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and in terms of their links with the Cohesion Fund. In this way the Commission made known its priorities in the light both of past experience in implementing the programmes and of Community policies linked to structural measures. The said Article requires the Commission to revise these guidelines prior to the mid-term review. Such revision is a crucial stage in the seven-year programming period (2000-2006). It is aimed at allowing the Member States to adapt their programming documents while taking account of possible changes in the socio-economic situation or labour market and of the findings of the mid-term review referred to in Article 42 of the same Regulation. The Commission asks the Member States to make revisions in duly substantiated cases. As a general rule the 1999 guidelines remain valid. The only objective of these revised guidelines is to offer Member States an complementary set of guidelines which will facilitate the identification of coherent and balanced priorities for the development of measures. The revised guidelines aim to implement the major changes that have occurred in those EU policies with possible impact on programming of the Structural Funds. They will be of help to the competent national and regional authorities in reviewing their measures. Thus the mid-term review will lead to qualitative shifts in a number of priority fields. While the Structural Funds primarily seek to enhance factors of competitiveness, and hence investment, it is also clear that the economic climate has deteriorated markedly since the adoption of the indicative guidelines. Analysis suggests that the Community Support Framework is essentially made up of public investment. These have a limited impact upon national budget balances. Nevertheless, the budgetary situation in Member States could lead to greater selectivity of projects and programmes. The mid-term review will also benefit from the major advances made in the context of the exercise carried out by all the relevant authorities aimed at simplifying, clarifying, coordinating and making more flexible the management of the Structural Funds. This question is dealt with in this document. Also Article 7(7) of the Regulation requires the Commission to review, if necessary, the indexation of the allocations for 2004, 2005 and 2006 as a technical adjustment on the basis of the last economic information available. The Commission made the calculations for the annual technical adjustment of the financial perspectives for 2004. The divergence between the theoretical Structural Funds deflator (10.4%) and the effective cumulated deflator (10.7%) is particularly low. If adjustment to mid-term inflation were carried out on this basis, this would mean a Structural Funds supplement of 90 million for each of the lastthree years of the programming period, amounts which should be distributed pro rata to all the programmes co-financed in the fifteen Member States. Given the slight divergence recorded, the Commission concludes there is no need to carry out a revision of the indexation basis for the Structural Funds. The four main principles identified by the Commission for revising the mid-term guidelines are as follows: - the European Councils - the follow up by the Commission; - the amendment of the legal framework of policies; - the Community policies for which the Commission has proposed changes; - the measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds' implementation. It should be stressed that these guidelines constitute one of the elements of the mid-term review. It is up to the management authorities and the Member States to submit proposals for amendments of measures to be concluded in agreement with the Commission, notably taking into account the results of evaluations. The attention of the Member States is drawn to the fact that any changes to programming documents will have to include, if necessary, an update of the "state aid scoreboards". The Commission also adopted additional indicative guidelines for the applicant countries to take account of their specific situation as well as the reduced duration of their programming period for the Structural Funds.

• 2002/12/27 Implementing legislative act
  • 32002R2355 summary

    COMMUNITY MEASURE : Commission Regulation 2355/2002/EC amending Commission Regulation 438/2001/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation 1260/1999/EC as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds. CONTENT : Regulation 1260/1999/EC lays down detailed rules applicable to the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds. In this context, the Regulation requires the responsible authorities in the Member States to keep available for the Commission all the supporting documents regarding expenditure and checks in respect of any assistance for a period of 3 years following the payment by the Commission of the final balance unless otherwise decided in the bilateral administrative agreements. It is desirable to specify the categories of supporting documents covered by this obligation, the form in which they may be held and the obligation to determine the bodies which should hold them. This is the purpose of the Commission Regulation 2355/2002/EC. ENTRY INTO FORCE : 17.01.2003.

  • OJ L 351 28.12.2002, p. 0042-0043
• 2002/12/27 Implementing legislative act
  • 32002R2355 summary

    COMMUNITY MEASURE : Commission Regulation 2355/2002/EC amending Commission Regulation 438/2001/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation 1260/1999/EC as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds. CONTENT : Regulation 1260/1999/EC lays down detailed rules applicable to the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds. In this context, the Regulation requires the responsible authorities in the Member States to keep available for the Commission all the supporting documents regarding expenditure and checks in respect of any assistance for a period of 3 years following the payment by the Commission of the final balance unless otherwise decided in the bilateral administrative agreements. It is desirable to specify the categories of supporting documents covered by this obligation, the form in which they may be held and the obligation to determine the bodies which should hold them. This is the purpose of the Commission Regulation 2355/2002/EC. ENTRY INTO FORCE : 17.01.2003.

  • OJ L 351 28.12.2002, p. 0042-0043
• 2001/03/02 Implementing legislative act
  • 32001R0438
  • OJ L 063 03.03.2001, p. 0021-0043
• 2001/03/02 Implementing legislative act
  • 32001R0438
  • OJ L 063 03.03.2001, p. 0021-0043
• #2192
• 1999/06/21 Council Meeting
• 1999/05/06 Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0427/1999 summary

    Under assent procedure, the European Parliament adopted the decision by Arlene McCarthy (PSE,UK) and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE,GR), which gives the Parliament's assent to the draft Council regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. The draft represents the compromise reached with the Council in April 1999, which adds a fourth Community initiative URBAN, for the economic and social rehabilitation of towns and urban areas in crisis. This fourth initiative will have a budget of EURO 700 million. The compromise also contains the modification of the overall financing of the initiatives (reduced from 5% to 3.5% of total commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds) and innovative measures and technical assistance (0.65% of commitments).

  • OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0254-0292
• 1999/05/03 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0264/1999
  • OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0017
  • AGRI BOTZ Gerhard PSE
  • BUDG KELLETT-BOWMAN Edward T. PPE
  • CONT DANKERT Pieter PSE
  • ENER CAMISÓN ASENSIO Felipe PPE
  • ENVI MYLLER Riitta PSE
  • FEMM VAN LANCKER Anne PSE
  • PECH FRAGA ESTÉVEZ Carmen PPE
  • REGI REGI/4/10925; REGI/4/10914 MCCARTHY Arlene PSE HATZIDAKIS Konstantinos PPE,
  • TRAN SIMPSON Brian PSE
• 1999/04/28 Committee draft report
  • PE230.739/B
• 1999/04/19 Legislative proposal
  • 06959/1/1999 summary

    In a new version of the consolidated text of the Council laying down general provisions on Structural Funds, the Council add to the three existing Community initiatives, a fourth : the URBAN initiative, wich will finance the economic and social regeneration of cities and urban neighbourhoods in crisis with a view to promoting sustainable urban development. This initiative would have a budget of EURO 700 Million for the 2000-2006 period in addition to the previously agreed INTERREG (cross-border cooperation), EQUAL (cooperation to combat discrimination in the labour market) and LEADER (rural development) initiatives. This modification was made after several consultations with the European Parliament which asked that the URBAN initiative be maintained.

• 1999/04/19 Legislative proposal published
  • 06959/1/1999 summary

    In a new version of the consolidated text of the Council laying down general provisions on Structural Funds, the Council add to the three existing Community initiatives, a fourth : the URBAN initiative, wich will finance the economic and social regeneration of cities and urban neighbourhoods in crisis with a view to promoting sustainable urban development. This initiative would have a budget of EURO 700 Million for the 2000-2006 period in addition to the previously agreed INTERREG (cross-border cooperation), EQUAL (cooperation to combat discrimination in the labour market) and LEADER (rural development) initiatives. This modification was made after several consultations with the European Parliament which asked that the URBAN initiative be maintained.

• 1999/04/09 Committee draft report
  • PE230.739
• 1999/04/06 Initial legislative proposal
  • 06959/1999
• 1999/04/06 Initial legislative proposal published
  • 06959/1999
• 1999/02/05 Committee draft report
  • PE229.833/DV
• 1998/11/19 Interim resolution adopted by Parliament
  • T4-0673/1998 summary

    In adopting the report by Mrs Arlene McCARTHY (PSE, UK) and Mr Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS (EPP, Gr) Parliament approved the Commission proposal seeking to allocate 0.46% of the Union's GNP annually for structural actions during the period 2000-2006. It considered, however, that an annual growth of EU GNP of about 2.5% was very optimistic. It considered that the EAGGF guarantee section resource (agricultural expenditure) used under Objective 2 should be considered, even under Heading 1, as an expenditure target and as non compulsory expenditure. However, Parliament did not state a position on the 'performance reserve' proposed by the Commission, amounting to 10% of total structural funds and intended to benefit regions which had the most effective development projects. - Objective 1 (less-favoured regions): Parliament took the view that regions covered by Objective 1 should be regions corresponding to level NUTS II, whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of the Community average and the most remote regions and sparsely populated northern regions. Parliament considered that two-thirds of the appropriations from the Fund should be devoted to this aim. - Objective 2 (regions undergoing restructuring): Parliament stressed that the figures concerning population covered by Objective 2 were only indicative and referred to the level of the European Union. They should represent about 10% of the population in the case of the industrial areas, 5% in the case of the rural areas, 2% in the case of the urban areas and 1% in the case of the fisheries areas. It considered that the proposed eligibility criteria did not reflect the structural weaknesses of regional economies and proposed adopting a menu of supplementary indicators such as wealth disparities within regions, low GDP, decline in working age population, geographical handicaps (peripheral, island, mountain status) and environmental situation. Parliament considered the unemployment criterion to be fundamental. It was also important to take account of conurbations and also small and medium-sized urban areas. - Objective 3: Parliament considered that actions under Objective 3 of the European Social Fund should be horizontal in nature, i.e. they should cover all the regions of the Member States. It welcomed the Commission's proposal for a 1% special local Social Capital Fund and specifically support for voluntary sector organisations. - Fisheries: Parliament proposed the drawing up of a horizontal regulation bringing together the structural measures for the fisheries sector within a single legal framework. - Transitional measures: given the reductions from seven to three, Parliament asked that, during a transitional period, all the regions formerly eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b should benefit from a transitional support fund and that consideration should be given to extending the ERDF financial support until 2006 in order to consolidate projects in progress. - Complementarity and partnership: Parliament made a series of requests, including: . recognition of the significant role played by local and regional authorities within the partnerships and the role of the NGOs; . participation by the most representative environmental NGOs in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes; . the right of the social partners to vote in the monitoring committees; . reinforcement of the implementation of the partnership principle. - Programming and coordination: Parliament called for the guidelines to be defined, in cooperation with the Commission, Council and Parliament, stating the common priorities for each objective. It called on the Commission and the Member States to ensure (at the planning and implementation stage of the measures associated with the structural funds) that equality of opportunity for men and women was promoted. It called for further consideration to be given to how large projects and projects which crossed the boundary of eligible regions could be supported. - Community Initiatives: Parliament welcomed the Commission's proposal to reduce to three the fields of Community Initiatives: crossborder, transnational and inter-regional cooperation, rural development and action to combat all forms of discrimination and inequalities in access to the labour market. It considered that the main priority was INTERREG which should have a special strand on interregional cooperation with and between islands. It stressed the need to continue and step up the efforts made to revitalise and open up rural areas through the Community Initiative LEADER. It reaffirmed its opinion on maintaining the Community Initiative URBAN (urban regeneration) which should cover both conurbations and small and medium-sized towns. It hoped to see the continuation of coordinated ERDF and ESF measures which made it easier for women to gain access to the labour market and childcare facilities and to set up companies. It called for the creation of a new kind of Community initiative to respond to economic crises and economic restructuring at European level which has resulted in job losses. It called for 6% of the total allocation of the Structural Funds to be attributed to Community initiatives. It considered that the financing of permanent and common administrative activities of the Commission by the Structural Funds' technical assistance resources must be exceptional and should be restricted; it called on the Commission to transmit clear information to the budgetary authority on the management costs for the Structural Funds. - Financial contributions by the funds: Parliament considered that apart from the cases provided for in the regulation, Community contributions could rise to 80% or more of the total eligible costs for all the regions whose per capita GDP is below 70% of the Community average. It called for the maximum rate of contribution to be raised to 65% of the total eligible cost for measures in declining rural areas under Objective 2. It called for the planned advance payment at the time of first commitment of appropriations to be increased from 10% to 20% in order to eliminate the risk of an unacceptable financial burden for the beneficiaries. It considered lastly that the new 'managing authority' proposed by the Commission should be a decentralised authority. Lastly Parliament called on the Member States systematically to put up signs which indicated clearly the part played by European funding and the European logo. In conclusion Parliament called for the opening of the conciliation procedure with the Council with a view to the various recommendations made by Parliament under the assent procedure being taken into account.

  • OJ C 379 07.12.1998, p. 0123-0164
• 1998/10/27 Committee interim report tabled for plenary
  • A4-0391/1998
• 1998/10/27 Committee interim report tabled for plenary
  • A4-0391/1998
  • OJ C 379 07.12.1998, p. 0004
• 1998/09/25 Committee draft report
  • PE227.492/ARE
• 1998/09/16 Committee of the Regions: opinion
  • CDR0167/1998
  • OJ C 373 02.12.1998, p. 0001
• 1998/09/15 Committee draft report
  • PE227.492/A
• 1998/03/18 Initial legislative proposal
  • COM(1998)0131
  • COM(1998)0182

Documents

• Initial legislative proposal published: COM(1998)0131
• Document attached to the procedure: COM(1998)0182
• Committee draft report: PE227.492/A
• Committee of the Regions: opinion: CDR0167/1998
• Committee of the Regions: opinion: OJ C 373 02.12.1998, p. 0001
• Committee draft report: PE227.492/ARE
• Committee interim report tabled for plenary: A4-0391/1998
• Committee interim report tabled for plenary: A4-0391/1998
• Committee interim report tabled for plenary: OJ C 379 07.12.1998, p. 0004
• Interim resolution adopted by Parliament: T4-0673/1998
• Interim resolution adopted by Parliament: OJ C 379 07.12.1998, p. 0123-0164
• Committee draft report: PE229.833/DV
• Initial legislative proposal: 06959/1999
• Initial legislative proposal published: 06959/1999
• Committee draft report: PE230.739
• Legislative proposal: 06959/1/1999
• Legislative proposal published: 06959/1/1999
• Committee draft report: PE230.739/B
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0264/1999
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0017
• Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0427/1999
• Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0254-0292
• Implementing legislative act: 32001R0438
• Implementing legislative act: OJ L 063 03.03.2001, p. 0021-0043
• Implementing legislative act: 32001R0438
• Implementing legislative act: OJ L 063 03.03.2001, p. 0021-0043
• Implementing legislative act: 32002R2355
• Implementing legislative act: OJ L 351 28.12.2002, p. 0042-0043
• Implementing legislative act: 32002R2355
• Implementing legislative act: OJ L 351 28.12.2002, p. 0042-0043
• Follow-up document: COM(2003)0499
• Follow-up document: COM(2004)0580
• Follow-up document: COM(2011)0693
• Follow-up document: SEC(2011)1308

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)