WRITTEN QUESTION E-1398/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Written Question E-1510/99 of 1 September 1999: Excessive use of European Structural Fund resources for road construction in the five new Länder and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the Federal Republic of Germany).
Date: 2000-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Berlin, European Regional Development Fund, German Democratic Republic, eligibility criteria, road building

C 89 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

competition has been systematically raised. In this context, two basic messages have been stressed. Firstly,
the need to reinforce international co-operation in a globalised economy in order to tackle anticompetitive
business practices of an international dimension. Secondly, the need to establish a solid basis for such
enhanced co-operation through a basic framework of rules, which complement WTO disciplines on trade
liberalisation.

A significant number of countries (cid:129) both developed and developing (cid:129) support WTO negotiations on a
multilateral
including
framework agreement on competition. This includes all European countries,
candidates to accession to the Union, Canada, Japan, Korea, South Africa, and several countries in Latin
America, such as Chile or Brazil. The members of the Commission responsible for Trade and Competition
are engaged in intensive discussions to seek a better convergence of views with other trade partners, but
particularly the United States, which up to now has been sceptical about a multilateral approach to
competition. The issue is also being discussed with India, Egypt and other developing countries in order to
identify how a competition agreement could help to address a number of developing country concerns.

The Community favours a realistic approach to the development of multilateral disciplines on competition.
An agreement within the WTO should essentially focus on a set of core principles on domestic
competition laws which should include principles of non-discrimination and transparency and give a
particular priority to the fight against hard-core cartels, on modalities for international cooperation in
relation to anticompetitive practices of an international dimension and on support for the progressive
reinforcement of competition structures in developing countries. Such an approach would also ensure that
there is more effective international co-operation to address anticompetitive practices by multinational
enterprises. It should be stressed however, that competition laws should apply in a neutral manner to
all firms (cid:129) or agreements among firms (cid:129) in a position of market power, regardless of the nationality of
the firm.

It is important to stress what we are not looking for: a global competition authoritiy and/or with dispute
settlement rules applying to consideration of individual cases.

In 1980 the United Nations conference on trade and development (Unctad) established a (cid:145)set of multi-
laterally agreed equitable principles and rules for the control of restrictive business practices(cid:146). This provided
a valuable reference point for the development of competition legislation in many developing countries.
Unctad has played an important role both through the provision of technical assistance and the work of an
intergovernmental group of experts on restrictive business practices. The set of principles is however non-
binding in nature. The Commission considers that the WTO is the appropriate forum to develop binding
disciplines on competition. However, a close co-operation between the WTO and other international
organisations with expertise in the competition field, such as Unctad, the World Bank and OECD is
envisaged. This would be of particular importance to develop an enhanced and better co-ordinated
approach to technical assistance.

(2001/C 89 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1398/00

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Written Question E-1510/99 of 1 September 1999: Excessive use of European Structural Fund
resources for road construction in the five new L(cid:228)nder and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the
Federal Republic of Germany)

The Commission has still not answered the above written question. In an interim reply of 7 October
1999 (1), it undertook to provide an answer once the regional plan had been submitted. The regional plan
was submitted to it at the end of 1999, but no answer has yet been received. The question is therefore set
out once more below:

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/37

The Federal German government has decided that the substantial sum of DEM 3,4 billion of ERDF
resources is to be spent on basic infrastructure from the Structural Funds for the new L(cid:228)nder, two thirds
of this amount being earmarked for long-distance road transport and only one third for rail transport. This
is inconsistent with the following principles adopted for the Structural Funds and considered essential by
the European Parliament:

(cid:129) the goal of harmoniously balanced and sustainable development;

(cid:129) the goal of increasing employment;

(cid:129) the goal of protecting an improving the environment;

(cid:129) the required balance among the various means of transport;

(cid:129) the required consideration of local transport systems, and especially citizens(cid:146) networks;

(cid:129) the required change to sustainable forms of transport to ensure compliance with the pledge to the

Community to reduce propellant gas emissions;

(cid:129) the partnership principle, which involves the local and regional authorities and the social and

environmental partners in the decision-making on programming;

(cid:129) the principle of additionality, whereby the Structural Funds must not be misused to plug holes in

national budgets.

Does the Commission believe that a development plan with these emerging shortcomings can be

1.
approved for the Objective 1 area in Germany?

2.

If not, what delays can be expected in overall planning in the Objective 1 area?

3. What does the Commission think of the substantial proportion of new basic infrastructure building
projects when the interim evaluation for the Land of Brandenburg refers to (cid:145)quantitatively satisfactory
provision of roads and railway lines(cid:146) and, in contrast to this, a (cid:145)sharp decline in employment(cid:146)?

How does the Commission rate compliance with the European principles when ERDF resources are
4.
used for road construction projects that entail massive interference in a natural environment that is worth
protecting and for projects to which the population concerned is strongly opposed?

5. What practical steps will the Commission be taking to ensure that the Federal Government complies
with the principles governing the Structural Fund regulation?(cid:146)

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The Community support framework (CSF) for Objective 1 regions in Germany, which will be approved by
the Commission shortly, states that for transport infrastructure special attention will be paid to efficiency,
balance between different modes of transport, sustainability and accessibility.

The share of the structural funds allocated to priority 2 (cid:145)Infrastructure(cid:146) in Brandenburg (24 %) is in line
with the other L(cid:228)nders(cid:146) allocations to infrastructure, which range from 16 % to 33 %. Moreover, priority 2
deals not only with transport infrastructure, but also with economic infrastructure (e.g. industrial estates),
research and development (R&D) infrastructure, training infrastructure and urban or local infrastructures.
Support for transport infrastructure in Brandenburg will be focused on improving quality,
instead of
building new transport infrastructure, and on linking Brandenburg to Transeuropean networks, which is
also a Community priority.

C 89 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Respect for sustainable development has been integrated as a general horizontal principle in the CSF and
will therefore apply to all operational programmes adopted under the CSF.
It will also contain the
deadlines before which the German authorities have to submit their proposals for the definition of Natura
2000 sites. Measures with possible negative consequences on the areas protected by Natura 2000 are
explicitly excluded from support from the structural funds.

The German authorities commit themselves explicitly to take all the necessary measures to guarantee that
Community regulations on the environment and sustainable development are respected. These include in
particular the directives on environmental impact assessment.

Every decision of the Commission concerning structural funds assistance is taken on the basis of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (1).
This regulation also contains provisions on the rules and procedures for ensuring compliance with the
regulation itself.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 89 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Creating dual posts for Directors-General and their staff

In Paul Van Buitenen(cid:146)s recent book (cid:145)Blowing the Whistle(cid:146), Mr Van Buitenen gives examples of where two
EU countries were lobbying for their candidate to get a Director-General(cid:146)s job, and where the only way
agreement could be reached was by dividing the job in two.

How many times has this happened?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s rules and procedures relating to high-level appointments are based on the Articles of
the Staff Regulations governing recruitment and promotion and are set out in Commission decisions
SEC(1999) 1485 and SEC(1999) 1876.

Under those rules, appointments to Director-general are on merit and the process includes mandatory
reference to qualifications and professional and managerial experience. In keeping with the Staff Regula-
tions and Commission decisions, the Commission takes account of the need for broad (cid:145)geographical
balance(cid:146) at all levels of staff in order to ensure that the Institution reflects the multinational character of the
Union, and of the commitment to the promotion of equal opportunities.

The Commission is aware of only one case in which a Directorate general (cid:129) and, accordingly, the Director
general(cid:146)s post (cid:129) was (cid:145)divided in two(cid:146): In 1995 a decision was made to attribute the responsibility for
External relations to two separate Directorates-general. The decision was adopted on the objective grounds
that it was evident that the diversity and complexity of the tasks that had developed over previous years,
together with a necessary geographical division of External relations responsibilities, made it inappropriate
for all of the relevant responsibilities to continue to be dealt with by a single Directorate general.