WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. URBAN II.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Ireland, competence of the Member States, eligibility criteria, interest group, town planning

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/71

The Commission has received a number of complaints alleging that state aid was granted in the framework
of procedures for granting third-generation mobile licences, which it is now looking into.

(1) Decision No 128/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 1998 on the coordinated
introduction of a third-generation mobile and wireless communications system (UMTS) in the Community (OJ L 17,
22.1.1999).

(2) Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996, amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and

personal communications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996).

(3) Parliament and Council Directive 97/13/EC of 10 April 1997, on a common framework for general authorisations

and individual licences in the field of telecommunication services (OJ L 117, 7.5.1997).

(2001/C 151 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: URBAN II

The Guidelines for URBAN II were published last May and the Irish Government must submit proposals
for approval to the Commission by 19 November 2000. However, it has emerged that the government has
decided to alter the tendering and selection process of projects eligible for funding, in particular without
consulting with the local authorities and partners. GBP 3,9 million has been allocated to Ireland under
URBAN II, down from GBP 16,6 million that Ireland received under URBAN I and the Commission(cid:146)s
URBAN II guidelines provide for one project in Ireland.

the Irish Government requested the involvement of

the County
Under URBAN I,
Enterprise Boards and the Area Partnership Companies and invited submissions for funding. However,
the Irish authorities have now indicated that they will not accept any bids from the eligible local
authorities and existing development structures but
through their own consultation and selection
procedure, they will submit their own bid for an Irish Programme to the European Commission.

local authorities,

Does the Commission believe that this altered procedure is in breach of the URBAN II guidelines? Is the
Commission of
threaten the proper
implementation of URBAN II in Ireland? What does the Commission intend to do to solve these problems?

the absence of a proper tendering process will

the view that

Does the Commission not believe that this procedure would breach the principles of partnership as stated
by the new general regulations on the Structural Funds (Council Regulation 1260/1999 (1) laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Ireland is eligible for a total of € 5 million (1999 prices) to be allocated to one operational programme
under the URBAN II Community initiative during the period 2000-2006. In principle an area is eligible if
it respects at least three of the nine criteria mentioned in the URBAN II guidelines (1) whereby development
strategies shall be selected on the basis of their quality, innovation and demonstrable ability.

According to Article 8 paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying
down general provisions on the structural funds (2), Community actions shall be drawn up in close
consultation between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies
designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices.

C 151 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

The selection procedure of eligible areas is a responsibility decentralised to the Member State. The
principles of partnership mentioned in the general regulations do not so much refer to this national
selection process as to the preparatory phase of an URBAN II programme, once the city has been
designated. Any modification of the national tendering and selection procedure by the Irish government
would therefore not constitute a breach of the general regulations on the structural funds. The Commis-
sion will, however, insist that local partnerships are involved in the preparation and implementation of the
operational programmes.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3130/00

by ˝æigo MØndez de Vigo (PPE-DE)
and Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)Get up and go(cid:146) project

Everything went well six months ago in Brussels when the Commission unveiled the (cid:145)Get up and go(cid:146)
project, to be carried out by a team headed by Dr Rabischong. The project aims to enable paraplegics to
the aid of orthopaedic appliances. The Commission(cid:146)s
abandon their wheelchairs and walk without
commitment to the project now appears to be slackening. Given that three hundred paraplegics are
eagerly awaiting the opportunity to benefit from the project, does not the Commission believe that it has
been too quick to withdraw its financial support from a project which has aroused great expectations?

(2001/C 151 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3131/00

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Commission decision to cancel the funding for the (cid:145)Get up and go(cid:146) programme

The Commission has cancelled the funding for the (cid:145)Get up and go(cid:146) programme, which is designed to make
paraplegics mobile. It takes the view that the project has moved into a commercial phase and can
consequently no longer be classed as basic research, this being a condition of eligibility for European
financial support. It considers that the time has come for State health services in the Member States and
the private sector to take over the responsibility. However, the cost of each operation is beyond the means
of most patients.

The results achieved by the programme have been very encouraging and aroused great expectations among
those who are immobile or confined to a wheelchair. At present, over 300 patients are still on the project
waiting-list after they were selected to undergo the operation and were confidently expecting to regain
their ability to walk.

Numerous organisations representing the patients, for example the Spanish State Association of the
Disabled, have asked the Commission not to cancel the funding for the programme.

Could the Commission change its decision and continue to finance the project for a further four years?

What help can it offer to the more than 300 patients on the waiting-list?