WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Germany's refusal on principle to incorporate in its regional plans the decentralised global grants intended to promote local development and employment initiatives.
Date: 2000-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, decentralisation, fund (EU), local employment initiative, operational programme, regional aid

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/47

The existence of political groups within the CoR is governed by its Rules of Procedure. Rule 9(1) states
that (cid:145)Members and alternates may form groups which reflect their political affinities(cid:146); Rule 9(3) goes
on to state that (cid:145)the Committee President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set
up, dissolved or otherwise changed. ((cid:133)) Notification of the formation (including name, bureau and
number of members) and dissolution of a political group shall be published by the President in the
Official Journal of the European Communities(cid:146).

3. and 4. The expenses incurred by members of the Committee for travel to attend meetings of political
groups are governed by the Rules of Procedure. According to Rule 9(5), (cid:145)the Secretary-General shall
provide the political groups and their constituent bodies with adequate resources for meetings,
activities and publications and for the work of their secretariats. The resources for each political
group shall be earmarked in the budget(cid:146).

Expenses incurred by Committee members for travel to meetings of European groupings of political
parties with the same political views are covered by Rule 22 on the CoR(cid:146)s external activities. The rules
on payments are laid down in the CoR decision on the refund of travel expenses and the payment of
daily subsistence and travel allowances, in particular Article 1(b) (Decision 31/2000 of 15 February
2000).

5. and 6. The Commission(cid:146)s right to judge the provisions adopted by the CoR is limited by the powers

conferred on it by the Treaty.

(2001/C 81 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/00

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Germany(cid:146)s refusal on principle to incorporate in its regional plans the decentralised global grants

intended to promote local development and employment initiatives

The Structural Fund Regulation set up a decentralised instrument for aid, the (cid:145)global grant(cid:146), which is
primarily intended to promote local development and employment initiatives (Article 9, Regulation
EC 1260/1999), which play an important role in achieving the Community(cid:146)s goal of creating a high level
of employment.

1.

(a) What is the Commission(cid:146)s approach to regional plans which nowhere provide this decentralised
aid instrument which in its own guidelines is designated as the instrument
for decentralised
partnership which in turn is a key factor
the structural programmes
(COM(1999) 344)?

in the success of

(b) How far has the Commission taken heed of Parliament(cid:146)s request in its resolution on the guidelines
(A5-0108/1999 of 18.1.2000, in particular paragraphs 15 and 16) that the global grant be appro-
priately taken into account in regional plans, in its negotiating stance towards the Member States?

(c) How would global grants have to be applied in regional plans for the Commission to recognise this as

(cid:145)appropriate(cid:146)?

(d) Does the Commission consider that plans completely omitting global grants could be approved?

2. Will the Commission approve Germany(cid:146)s regional plans if the Federal Government and the L(cid:228)nder
maintain their refusal on principle to include any global grants in their plans? If so, why? If not, what
specific requirements will the Commission impose?

C 81 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

Global grants are a possible but not mandatory element of Member States(cid:146) regional development plans and
may be an efficient tool for local development. However favourable local conditions for their use are
necessary. The regional development plans submitted by the German authorities did not foresee global
grants and their use has been discussed during the negotiations with the Commission.

The European social fund Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July
1999 (1), obliges Member States to reserve adequate financing for non governmental organisations and
local partnerships. With small amounts actors at a local
level should mobilise local potential for job
creation. A chapter on global grants, following this requirement, has therefore now been included in the
Community support framework.

In addition, the utilisation of such instruments should be requested primarily by local partners and not
imposed on them. If in the future a need for wider use of global grants becomes apparent as formulated by
the regional authorities, the mid-term review would be an opportunity to extend the use of global grants.
The decision to employ a global grant will then be taken by the Member State in agreement with the
Commission or by the managing authority in agreement with the Member State, as stated in Article 9 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (2).

Regions can use other approaches to unlock regional potential and promote partnership, such as local
employment pacts foreseen in several operational programmes or activities in urban areas. Thuringia for
example pays particular attention to local partnerships in exploiting the potential of the information
society.

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

(2001/C 81 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE),
Ilkka Suominen (PPE-DE), Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE),
Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE), Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE), Den Dover (PPE-DE),
Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), John McCartin (PPE-DE), Dana Scallon (PPE-DE),
Marjo Matikainen-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE), Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE),
James Provan (PPE-DE), James Elles (PPE-DE), Charlotte Cederschi(cid:246)ld (PPE-DE),
Karla Peijs (PPE-DE), Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR), Bertel Haarder (ELDR),
Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE), John Purvis (PPE-DE),
Markus Ferber (PPE-DE), Christian von Boetticher (PPE-DE),
Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE), Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE), Astrid Thors (ELDR),
Giles Chichester (PPE-DE), Konrad Schwaiger (PPE-DE), Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE),
Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE), Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR),
Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR), Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE),
Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE), Jan Mulder (ELDR),
Encarnaci(cid:243)n Redondo JimØnez (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE),
Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE), Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE),
Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), Joseph Daul (PPE-DE) and
Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: The position and measures taken by the Commission concerning the British fur ban

Member States had until 13 March to react to the draft UK ban on fur-farming. Five Member States (Italy,
France, Finland, Spain and Denmark) voiced very serious concerns about
the measure, and France
submitted a detailed opinion opposing its adoption. As the Commission is aware, this proposal has no