WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Structural Funds, development aid, eligibility criteria, eligible region, regional aid, statistics, unemployment

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/79

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

the information relayed by the Honourable Member is
The Commission notes ANAPA(cid:146)s claim but
insufficient to enable it to assess the compatibility of the Brazilian authorities(cid:146) prohibition with World
Trade Organisation rules.

To allow the situation to be examined more closely and assessed in the light of WTO rules, ANAPA is
invited to lodge a detailed complaint with the Commission under the procedure laid down in the
Regulation on obstacles to trade (Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure exercise of
the Community(cid:146)s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices
of the World Trade Organisation (1)).

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 81 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas

The proposal first submitted by Italy on 1 October 1999, relating to the coverage of Structural Fund
Objective 2 areas for the period 2000-2006, was initially rejected on the grounds that the statistics used
conflicted with Eurostat data.

However, not even the amended and revised version, which seeks to incorporate the area of Turin into
Objective 2, has been granted final approval by the Commission.

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy maintains that the Turin area is not eligible, as its unemploy-
ment rate does not meet the criteria for Objective 2. It fails to take into consideration the fact that Italy is
the only EU country to have an organisation such as the (cid:145)Cassa Integrazione(cid:146) (a fund which provides
income support to workers who have been laid off). Workers receiving this kind of income support are
not included on the unemployment lists immediately, but only after several months.

The approval of the proposal has been delayed for many months now and is severely penalising Italy(cid:146)s
economy. The ITL 9 000 billion of the 2000-2006 Community support framework cannot be committed
and the northern regions do not even have the opportunity of using other forms of national financial aid,
as the failure to agree on Objective 2 is also blocking approval of the state aid programme for the Centre-
North.

The Italian Government has, in the meantime, accepted the other observations made by the Commission
and is waiting for the regions to approve the new proposal to be sent to Brussels.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, what are the fresh obstacles which might undermine the outcome of the
negotiations?

When is the Italian proposal expected to be granted final approval?

Which other Member States are, like Italy, still awaiting the approval of proposals concerning regional
policy objectives and are being affected by the situation in an equally damaging way?

C 81 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The Italian authorities sent the Commission their Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. On
11 October the Commission informed them that it was unacceptable since it did not meet the requirement
of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions
on the Structural Funds (1) that at least 50 % of the population covered by Objective 2 must live in zones
meeting the criteria of paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article. Only 29,6 % of the total population proposed in
fact did so.

The Commission therefore asked Italy to send with all speed an amended proposal in line with the Council
Regulation. New zones meeting the Community criteria and with a population of at least 1 510 000 would
have to be included and zones of equivalent population not meeting them dropped.

In the case of the Province of Turin the Commission has pointed out to Italy that the zones in greatest
difficulty in it could perfectly well be presented for Objective 2 eligibility on the basis of paragraphs 7 to 9
of the said Article 4.

The Commission has several times pointed out to Italy the need for immediate transmission of a revised
proposal in order not to penalise the areas in question. As soon as it has been received the Commission
will give top priority to rapid adoption.

Italy is the only Member State for which it has not been possible to adopt Objective 2 zoning.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 81 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE),
Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE),
Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE),
Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE),
Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE),
Giuseppe Nistic(cid:242) (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell(cid:146)Utri (PPE-DE), Guido Podest(cid:224) (PPE-DE),
Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Pier Casini (PPE-DE)
and Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: The euro crisis

(7 June 2000)

The undeniable crisis affecting the euro has been, and is, a cause for great concern in all the countries are
participating in the single currency, and in the EU in general.

Can the Council as a matter of urgency provide the European Parliament and, more generally, European
citizens, with an adequate explanation of the measures that have been, or are to be, taken to put an end to
a situation which we all hope is transitory, but which nevertheless has been dragging on for many
months?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Euro 11 group, on 8 May, issued the following statement:

The Euro 11 Ministers and Commissioner, and the President of the ECB share the view that growth is
very robust in the euro area; an increasing number of jobs is being created. The ECB is committed to