WRITTEN QUESTION E-1336/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Measures to combat high unemployment in the Prefecture of Pieria.
Date: 2000-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, European Social Fund, Greece, Macedonia, competence of the Member States, fight against unemployment

C 46 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Does the Commission not believe that the proposed measures run totally counter to the notions of
(cid:145)continuity(cid:146) and (cid:145)sound management(cid:146), despite being presented as a piece of (cid:145)sound financial management(cid:146)?
In view of the circumstances, does the Commission not consider that the best solution would be to
provide the interested parties with a detailed explanation of the underlying reasons for the liquidation of
these projects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The European Community Investment Partners scheme (ECIP) was launched in the 1990s and quickly
flourished. It became increasingly difficult to manage, geared as it was initially to a small number of
operations, because of various factors: the marked rise in the number of projects quickly outstripped the
capacity of the available Commission staff to manage them -- recourse to a technical assistance unit (in
1997) and a financial assistance unit (in 1999) gradually helped to offset the staff shortage, but only in
part -- and the tightening up of the Commission(cid:146)s financial procedures in line with the observations of the
Court of Auditors led to a delay in procedures (requiring a written procedure involving the Commission
rather than the delegation procedure) and the separation of the technical and financial functions.

As a result, payment arrears built up, though these have now largely been dealt with, and decision-making
slowed down. Since the legal basis for the scheme expired on 31 December 1999 the ECIP programme has
been in the process of closure, despite continued demand for financing, following the Commission(cid:146)s
decision to give exclusive priority in 2000 and 2001 to financial execution and closure of existing ECIP
contracts and to recovering unused funds to be repaid. A letter to this effect has been sent to all the
financial institutions concerned.

Applications for operations Nos 3 749 and 3 750, received in June 1999, were not presented for approval
by the Steering Committee for the reasons outlined above.

(2001/C 46 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1336/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Measures to combat high unemployment in the Prefecture of Pieria

In the Prefecture of Pieria in Greece, the unemployment rate is soaring towards 35 %. The main groups
affected are young people, women and first-time job-seekers. The main factors contributing to this
development are the severe blow to tourism in the region caused by the war in Kosovo (cid:129) the largest
number of tourists to the area come from Central and Eastern Europe by road through Yugoslavia and the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (cid:129) the fall in income from farming and the closure of
many small, piece-rate based clothing manufacturers who mainly employed women.

When approving the Third Community Support Framework, will the Commission take account of the
special situation of the Prefecture of Pieria? What additional measures will be taken by the European Social
Fund, in cooperation with the national authorities, to combat unemployment and create more jobs?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission would like to clarify that according to the structural funds regulations (Regulation (EC)
No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1) and
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (2)), responsibility for formulating and submitting proposals lies with the Member States.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/173

However, the Commission is aware of the specific problems mentioned by the Honourable Member and
will
the third
Community support framework which are expected to start in June 2000.

take them into account during the negotiations of

the operational programmes of

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Merger of Commercial Intertech Corporation with Parker Hannifin Corporation

Is the Commission aware of the merger between Commercial Intertech Corporation and Parker Hannifin
Corporation and its implications for European competitivity? Will the Commission investigate whether it is
appropriate for the merger to take place in the light of European competition policy? Will it undertake to
meet with representatives of the workforce to hear their views?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission has not been informed of the merger, which is the subject of the questions raised by the
Honourable Member.

With regard to the Commission meeting with representatives of the workforce of undertakings concerned
by a notified merger, in general the Commission is willing to meet with such representatives to hear their
views on the competition aspects of the operation. Furthermore, Article 18.4 of the Merger Regulation,
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between
undertakings (1) provides for the entitlement of the recognized representatives of employees to be heard
upon application, in specific instances, most notably in the case of in-depth investigations.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2001/C 46 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition

(4 May 2000)

Last February, Members of
the European Parliament received a dossier from the IAF (International
Automobile Federation) concerning the (cid:129) not altogether transparent (cid:129) links between the Directorate-
General for Competition and the Federation. Enclosed with the dossier was a copy of a letter sent on
1 February 2000 to the Commissioner responsible, formally asking him to state his position on four
points.

In the interests of improving transparency in the relations between certain much-discussed departments
and their contacts in the relevant sector, and ensuring public accountability, would the Commission
answer the following questions:

1. Did the Commission reply to the IAF(cid:146)s requests?

2.

3.

If so, what was the substance of the Commission(cid:146)s replies?

If not, why were the complaints that had been made not followed up?

4. When will the Commission take the necessary decisions to ensure transparency and honesty, which

were called for on all sides when the last Commission was turned out of office?