WRITTEN QUESTION E-3858/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Enlargement and regional policy: European territorial strategy (ETS).
Date: 2000-12-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Baltic States, Central and Eastern Europe, Cohesion Fund, EU regional policy, Malta, Structural Funds, accession negotiations, economic and social cohesion, enlargement of the Union, less-favoured region

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/67

(2001/C 187 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3858/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and regional policy: European territorial strategy (ETS)

After two years of negotiations with the applicant countries in the Luxembourg Group (Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus) talks started last April on the application of the acquis
of the structural funds (Chapter 21 of the negotiations) with the six countries in that group. In this context
the European Parliament adopted a resolution in October this year (R5-0417/2000 (1) of 4 October 2000)
on the enlargement of the European Union, setting out the EP(cid:146)s requests with regard to the accession
procedure and the negotiations being held on the subject.

Could the Commission indicate the approximate timetable for the debate on Chapter 21 and the stage
reached in the negotiations and the progress made so far? Can it say roughly when it envisages starting the
debate on Chapter 21 with the applicant countries in the Helsinki Group (Romania, Slovakia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Bulgaria and Malta) in the context of the accession negotiations which began on 28 March this
year?

In paragraph 109 of the EP(cid:146)s resolution on the enlargement of the EU Parliament considers (cid:145)that the
European Spatial Development Perspective must be taken into account during the enlargement process, in
a manner consistent with the subsidiarity principle, and tied clearly to regional policy, with a view to the
reform of the Structural Funds in 2006, in order to provide an adequate response to the development
needs of the enlarged Union, and calls on the Commission, in this connection, to analyse the impact of the
enlargements on employment, cohesion and economic migration with a view to taking prompt measures
to prevent the emergence of regional imbalances;(cid:146).

Can the Commission say to what extent it is taking this request into account in the accession procedure
and its negotiations with the Luxembourg Group in the context of Chapter 21, particularly as regards the
ETS?

How will the ETS promote the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the outer maritime regions
currently under Objective 1 by combating the increase in the peripheral nature of these regions which
enlargement will entail?

(1)

(cid:146)Texts adopted(cid:146) of 4 October 2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

It is not possible at this stage to provide a reliable timetable leading to the closure of the negotiations on
chapter 21. The state of preparation, for example, in terms of the development of administrative capacity
varies considerably between candidate countries. The differing situations are reflected in the regular
reports, the most recent of which was adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000 (1).

The obligation to implement the acquis is an absolute requirement in order that the candidate countries
are able on accession to absorb the allocated budget on the basis of the rules governing the implementa-
tion of the structural funds and the cohesion fund.

With regard to the Helsinki group referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission has received
position papers from Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Malta and therefore it seems likely that for these
countries negotiations on chapter 21 will be opened under the Swedish Presidency. For Romania and
Bulgaria, it is not clear at present that negociations will be able to begin at the same time.

C 187 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

The debate on the future of European cohesion policy after 2006, including the role of the European
Spatial Development Perspective,
is only beginning. The Commission published the Second Cohesion
Report on 31 January 2001 (2), which sets out a number of ideas and options in this regard, in order to
launch the debate. The Parliament will be fully involved in this debate. With regard to the outermost
regions, the Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission has presented proposals to the
in the fields of structural policies and rural development in order to take account of their
Council
particular circumstances (3).

(1) COM(2000) 700 final.
(2) COM(2001) 24.
(3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 187 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Community-wide interception systems

In response to my Question E-2655/00 (1), the Commission stated that it was not aware of any attempt to
impose built-in interception systems on a Community-wide scale.

Articles 20 (real time collection of computer data) and 21 (interception of content data) of the draft
Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention do imply the introduction of built-in surveillance systems on
a pan-European and potentially (thanks to US involvement in the drafting process) global scale. The
implausibly broad definitions provided in Article 1 of the draft Convention make this threat even bigger.
In its non-paper of 2 October 2000, the European Commission itself raised numerous concerns regarding
the current draft Convention, indicating the seriousness of this proposal.

The Council of Europe(cid:146)s Document CJ-PD(2000)10, which discusses protection of personal data, says, in
relation to Directive 95/46/EC (2), that (cid:145)one could argue that a general mandatory retention of traffic data is
necessary for the investigation of criminal offences(cid:146). As the draft convention describes traffic data as (cid:145)any
computer data referring to a communication(cid:146), it is difficult to see how this could be imposed without
a comprehensive surveillance system.

Could the Commission indicate what it intends to do in order to ensure that the Convention does not lead
to built-in surveillance systems?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 143.
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

In the context of the ongoing negotiations for a Council of Europe convention on Cybercrime, the
Commission has submitted a non-paper in which various concerns are expressed regarding aspects of
protection of privacy within the emerging text, as the Honourable Member has noted.

The Commission will continue to participate actively in these negotiations, in which it has observer status,
and defend the acquis communautaire to the best of its abilities.