WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/99 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council. Former frontier cities.
Date: 1999-12-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU initiative, European Regional Development Fund, Schengen Agreement, cross-border cooperation, economic consequence, frontier region, internal border of the EU

C 219 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2000/C 219 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2539/99

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Report on animal welfare required under Council Directive 98/58

Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58 (1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes
requires the Commission, before 30 June 1999, to submit to the Council a report:

(a)

comparing animal welfare provisions in the Community and in non-member countries which supply
the Community,

(b) on the scope for obtaining wider international acceptance of the welfare principles laid down in

Council Directive 98/58, and

(c) on the extent to which Community animal welfare objectives may be liable to be undermined as a

result of competition from non-member countries which do not apply equivalent standards.

Bearing in mind that the above report is closely connected to the impact on animal welfare of the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and that the new WTO Round is to commence shortly, when does the
Commission intend to submit the report required by Directive 98/58?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the relevance of the report in respect of the priority given to animal welfare
policies inside the Community and the importance of obtaining a wide international acceptance of these
policies.

To draw up this report, the Commission has sent letters to those third countries supplying red meat,
poultry meat, fish products and live animals to the Community, requesting information on their legislation
or guidelines in the field of animal protection on the farm, during transport and at the time of slaughter.
The Commission has written to 104 countries and has received information from 73 of them.

The analysis of the information is continuing and it is anticipated that the report will be presented to the
Council shortly.

(2000/C 219 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/99

by Guido Podest(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Former frontier cities

Protracted piecemeal research involving many officials from different Directorates-General of the Com-
mission has revealed a total absence of any study by the European Union institutions concerning all those

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/179

territorial and economic constructs which, as part of the process of creating the single internal market and,
to an even greater extent, with the entry into force of the Schengen Agreement, have seen the basis of
their own socio-economic organisation disappear, namely frontiers.

While we are all undoubtedly in favour of the birth of an ever closer European Union, we have an absolute
duty to meet the needs of all of Europe(cid:146)s citizens. When the Schengen Agreement entered into force, the
only Community measure provided for a specific mobility scheme for customs officials, but nothing was
done for all those who had some kind of dependent activity associated with the existence of frontiers.

Does the Council not consider it necessary and a matter of urgency to carry out a detailed analysis of the
needs of these specific areas of the European Union?

Does it not consider it opportune to provide specific logistical and financial support for those who, for a
brief period, are being penalised by the single market?

Reply

(14 February 2000)

The Council is aware of the problems relating to the Union(cid:146)s frontier areas and considers, as the

1.
Honourable Member has pointed out, that the specific needs of these areas must be considered.

To date, 10 Member States of the Union have dispensed with checks on persons at internal frontiers

2.
in the context of implementation of the Schengen acquis.

Although this measure has made freedom of movement of persons possible, it has not, however, led to the
departure of the competent authorities from frontier areas. Indeed, the arrangements put in place by the
States participating in Schengen cooperation provide for intensifying police and judicial cooperation.
Articles 39 et seq. of the Schengen Convention lay the foundations for police cooperation and call upon
the States to conclude (cid:145)more detailed present or future bilateral agreements between Contracting Parties
with a common border(cid:146). This cooperation already provides for arrangements for pursuit and surveillance,
as well as the intensification of exchanges of communications, in particular by means of the secondment
of liaison officers.

The arrangements in frontier areas have taken various forms, including the forms of common border posts
or police and customs cooperation centres. Important tasks are carried out at them, such as gathering and
exchanging information, cooperating for the purpose of expelling aliens in illegal situations, proceeding
with the readmission of asylum applicants, etc.

3.
In addition, in its recent draft communication on Interreg, the Commission stresses that frontier areas
have often been overlooked in the context of national policies, which has given them a peripheral nature
in economic terms within the national territory.

Although this situation has improved with the single market and EMU, further efforts still have to be made
to increase cooperation to the mutual benefit of the frontier areas.

The European Union contributes financially, as part of

4.
to
promoting common approaches with regard to the development of SMEs, education, training and cultural
exchanges, health problems in the frontier regions, protection and improvement of the environment,
energy, transport and telecommunications networks, and for joint management systems and transfrontier
and transnational bodies.

the Interreg Community initiative,

During the 1994-1999 programming period,

5.
(cid:145)Transfrontier cooperation(cid:146).

Interreg devoted € 2 600 million to its heading

Section A of the new phase of Interreg (2000-2006 period) will also cover transfrontier cooperation
between adjoining territorial communities in order to develop transfrontier economic and social focal
points from common strategies for lasting territorial development.

C 219 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

The ERDF(cid:146)s total contribution to Interreg for the period 2000-2006 is set at € 4 875 million. The
maximum contribution is set at 75 % of the total cost of projects and programmes in Objective 1 regions
and at 50 % elsewhere. In addition, Member States will have to ensure that between 50 and 80 % of their
total Interreg budget is allocated to transfrontier cooperation.

With regard to logistical and financial support for frontier areas, the Council would draw the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s attention to the measures taken in the context of the structural funds, and more particularly in
the context of the Community (cid:145)Interreg(cid:146) initiative relating to the development of frontier areas. When
internal frontiers were abolished, very considerable use was made of the financial possibilities offered by
this structural policy instrument.

(2000/C 219 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2548/99

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Monopoly purchasing practices in Olympic sailing classes

Monopoly practices are emerging in the sport of sailing. with the consent of the International Sailing
Federation (ISAF), relating to purchasing practices in a number of Olympic classes.

The problems arise from the fact that practitioners of sailing with Olympic aspirations are obliged to
purchase from certain shipyards designated by ISAF; the organisation justifies this on grounds of ensuring
quality and uniform standards.

It appears clear that significant interantional pressure exists for these monopoly practices to be blocked
and ended, since they give rise to various problems, including the following:

(cid:129) the brands chosen do not have to promote themselves;

(cid:129) sportsmen and women are deprived of opportunities as regards promotion, sponsorship, etc, since all

are obliged to use the same equipment;

(cid:129) prices are unduly high thanks to the absence of competition;

(cid:129) technical development is lagging behind because the rules of the market do not operate.

Can Commissioner Monti state, given that this is a problem at world level that has effects in Europe, what
action the Commission can take to put an end to this monopoly on supplies and enable individual
practitioners of sailing to obtain their supplies where they see fit, provided the rules applying are observed,
thus ceasing to damage the vessel construction industry?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the requirements covering
purchase of sailing equipment for the Olympics.

A number of sporting competitions are governed by strict requirements covering the equipment which
may be employed. These requirements may be dictated in the interests of safety, or in order to ensure that
differences in equipment do not have undue influence on the outcome of competitions. Sporting
authorities may accordingly impose such requirements without infringing competition law.

It is suggested in this case that participants are obliged to obtain their equipment from a single supplier. It
is not clear how this obligation is imposed in practice.

The information at the Commission(cid:146)s disposal is accordingly not now sufficient for it to intervene in the
instance to which the Honourable Member refers. However, were a duly-substantiated complaint to be
made, this would naturally be examined in accordance with the prescribed procedures.