WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Regional development funding.
Date: 1999-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Italy, eligibility criteria, eligible region

C 280 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

The Commission has to date issued four publications describing key projects carried out with
2.
Structural Fund support (2). Other booklets on certain Member States are currently being prepared; one
on the United Kingdom is scheduled for the end of 1999.

In addition, information concerning the most significant projects carried out in individual Member States
((cid:145)success stories(cid:146)) is available on the Inforegio website (http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int).

3.
Under the partnership approach, the Commission takes every possible step to ensure that full use is
made of the resources available from the Structural Funds. Although Italy(cid:146)s administrative procedures are
somewhat slow,
the country has achieved undeniable progress in
implementing its structural programmes in recent years. This effort to improve matters must, however,
be sustained, particularly in view of the new programming period and the new management mechanisms,
which hinge on a greater degree of subsidiarity.

it must be acknowledged that

It should be pointed out that, in terms of its implementation capacity, the Lazio region has achieved the
average rate for Italian non-Objective 1 regions.

(1)

(2)

The figures refer to the commitments and payments made to final recipients, expressed as a percentage of the total
cost of the programmes approved under each objective.
The publications concerned are:
(cid:145)Job challenge: ten innovative projects tell their stories(cid:146) ISBN 92-828-4241-X;
(cid:145)Regional success stories: profiles of 36 projects in Europe(cid:146) ISBN 92-827-6539-3; (cid:145)Deutschlandreise (cid:129) Projekte der
EU-Regionalforderung(cid:146) ISBN 92-828-2680-5;
(cid:145)Tour de France des rØgions (cid:129) 27 projets soutenus par les Fonds
structurels(cid:146) ISBN 92-828-2678-3.

(2000/C 280 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Regional development funding

Is it true that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy recently rejected the Italian Government(cid:146)s

1.
proposals concerning Objective 2?

2.

If so, why?

3.
Can the Commission state whether the new criteria for the utilisation of structural funds laid down at
the Berlin summit, which are different from those in force during the period 1994-1999, are behind that
rejection?

4.

If so, which Member States would benefit from those new criteria, and which would be penalised?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999

1.
was found by the Commission to be not acceptable.

The proposal was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of
2.
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), under which the areas that
satisfy the (cid:145)Community(cid:146) criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the
population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian
authorities in line with the (cid:145)Community(cid:146) criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the
total eligible population).

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/13

The Regulation was adopted unanimously by the Member States and received the assent of the
3.
European Parliament. As explained above, the Italian proposal was considered inadmissible not because of
the new criteria as such but rather because it was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of the Regulation.

4.

The criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation do not penalise any Member State.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 280 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/99

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services

In the light of reports that the British Intelligence Services are intercepting all telecommunications to and
from Ireland, will the Commission seek to establish what the implications of this action are for the
political cohesion of the Union?

Further, what are the implications for the right of commercial undertakings to engage freely in commu-
nicating internationally and within the EU, and what are the implications for individual citizens engaged in
personal or commercially sensitive communications?

Can the Commission ask the British authorities if the reports are actually true and, if so, if the British are
spying on all other Member States of the EU in a similar way?

Could the Commission also state whether such activities are in violation of any EU law?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters to which the Honourable Member refers.

In any event, the Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked,
which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

The Commission nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests, and condemns any and
all threats to the integrity of communications within or exchanged between institutions, commercial
enterprises or by individual citizens engaged in communicating internationally and within the Union.

(2000/C 280 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products

Several bodies licensed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Resources to certify PDO
products and to append the PDO identifying stamp on those products use the services of the respective
Consorzi di tutela (organisations for the protection of individual products) in the capacity of outside
bodies. Apparently, the equipment for marking the products (branding or other methods) to show that
they have been certified to be PDO is not therefore in the possession of the body authorised to certify such