WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council. European border regions.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, enlargement of the Union, external border of the EU, frontier region, littoral, multiannual financial framework, regional development

C 163 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Of particular importance is the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 300 (6) EC to give an opinion on
whether an international agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaty. In its opinion in C-1/91 of
14 December 1991 the Court held that the system of judicial supervision which the draft EEA Agreement
proposed to establish was incompatible with the EEC Treaty (6). In its opinion in C-1/94 of 15 November
1994, the Court held that the Community did not have sole competence to conclude all parts of the
agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation concerning trade in services (GATS) and the trade
related aspects of intellectual property rights including trade in counterfeit goods (TRIPs) (7). Thus, the
Community is required either to change the content of the agreement envisaged or to amend the Treaty
under Article 48 (ex Article N) of the Treaty on European Union.

The Commission regrets the delay in giving this supplementary answer.

(1)

Judgment of the Court of first instance in joined cases T-79/89, T-84/89, T-85/89, T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89,
T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98/89, T-102/89 and T-104/89 BASF and others v. Commission, ECR [1992] II-315,
point 31.

(2) ECR [1960] p. 325.
(3) ECR [1960] p. 355.
(4) Unpublished, judgment of 5 October 2000.
(5) At point 99 of the judgment.
(6) ECR [1991] I-6079.
(7) ECR [1994] I-5267.

(2001/C 163 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: European border regions

Is the Council aware of a proposal by the Commission for an (cid:145)Action Plan(cid:146) to help border regions cope
with enlargement and has the Council considered whether this plan will require a change to the financial
perspectives with a new ceiling in Category 2 so that existing poor regions will not lose assistance as
a result?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council has not
referred to by the
Honourable Member, and consequently has no plans to change the financial perspective to cover the
actions described in the question. In this respect, the situation of existing poor regions is not in doubt.

received any Commission proposal along the lines

As regards the second question, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in any case, the
financial perspective already includes coverage for other actions, in particular strand A of Interreg III which
aims to promote integrated regional development between border regions, including external borders and
maritime borders.

(2001/C 163 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) and Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Rules governing the application of agro-environmental measures in Portugal

It appears that there are considerable loopholes in the implementation of some agro-environmental
measures in Portugal, particularly those relating to the preservation of extensive methods of cultivating
cork oak and holm oak and organic farming.