WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/00 by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission. Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, Structural Funds, budget policy, management audit, structural policy

C 136 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the specific situation reported in the Sicilian press and outlined by the
Honourable Member. However, the Commission has previously been made aware, through individual
complaints and petitions to the Parliament, of threats in certain German L(cid:228)nder (in particular Baden-
W(cid:252)rttemburg) to expel Community nationals who had been migrant workers and who claimed social
assistance when they became involuntarily unemployed.

Where involuntary unemployment is confirmed by the competent employment office in accordance with
Article 7(1) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (1), a
current and valid residence card may not be withdrawn as the person effectively retains his status of
worker during the period of involuntary unemployment.

When the residence card is first renewed, the national authorities may restrict its validity to 12 months if
the person is involuntarily unemployed. The Commission(cid:146)s view is that no such restriction is possible at
the second and subsequent renewals of the residence card, regardless of the fact that the person may still
be involuntarily unemployed.

There was an exchange of letters between the Commission and the German authorities in 1998 at which
time the German federal authorities said they shared the Commission(cid:146)s view and would write accordingly
to the L(cid:228)nder. Further complaints indicated that the authorities at L(cid:228)nder level were still acting contrary to
Community law, so the Commission has recently written again to the German federal authorities asking
that they ensure that Community law is complied with in respect of this problem. The German authorities
have not yet replied to this letter.

The Commission is aware of the case of Francesco Vidimar, whose petition (No 646/99) to the Parliament
was discussed by the petitions committee on 6 November 2000.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2001/C 136 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/00

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006

On 24/25 March 1999 the Berlin European Council decided to earmark € 260 billion for the Union(cid:146)s
structural policy measures in the period from 2000-2006.

The Council issued the regulations on the various Funds on 21 June 1999.

The Structural Funds are used to finance programmes to promote economic and social development in the
fifteen Member States. The activities financed under them are intended to make for relatively high
concentration of resources in financial and geographical terms, decentralised management, more effective
supervision, and greater efficiency.

Especially in the light of the last point, can the Commission say:

(cid:129) what assistance operations are already under way; and

(cid:129) which areas have yet to receive payments?

To clarify the previous question, can it supply tables indicating:

(cid:129) when the Member States submitted their draft operational programmes; and

(cid:129) the time taken for the Commission to reach the necessary decisions?

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/231

While the Commission was taking its decisions, were there any instances of failure to meet the five-month
time-limit laid down in Article 15 of the general Structural Funds Regulation? If so, why?

Could the Commission also supply tables specifying:

(cid:129) when the Member States submitted their draft national guidelines; and

(cid:129) when the Commission took the necessary decisions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 136 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3469/00

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of Directive 98/44/EC

Given the German Government(cid:146)s call for the revision of Directive 98/44/EC (1) on the legal protection of
biotechnological inventions and the fact that, to date, no more than three Member States of the European
Union have transposed that Directive, does not the Commission deem it necessary to review the substance
thereof?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the German government(cid:146)s call for the revision of Directive 98/44/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions. In the Commission(cid:146)s view, this is not the line taken by the German government, which has
stressed the importance of certain areas covered by Directive 98/44/EC and expressed its wish for these
areas to be given special attention when the Directive is transposed into German law, a process which is
already under way.

The Directive was due to be transposed into the national law of each Member State by 30 July 2000. As
the Honourable Member rightly points out, only three Member States have so far transposed the Directive
into their own legislation. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of the Member States have
already begun a legislative process with the aim of implementing the Directive into their national law.
Some of them are about to finalise this process and are due to notify the Commission of their national
implementing measure or implementing regulation in the near future.

The Commission naturally remains at the disposal of any Member State requiring assistance with the
transposition process.