WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Applications for assistance from the Cohesion Fund.
Date: 2001-02-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU Member State, activity report, aid system, exchange of information, regional policy

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/173

a development that could well have repercussions, particularly in the light of the criteria set out by
Commissioner Monti to the European Parliament on the granting of guarantees. Terra M(cid:237)tica stands to
benefit from such guarantees granted to a public company which subsequently takes out a loan.

Does the Commission take the view that the granting of guarantees to a public company such as those
from which Terra M(cid:237)tica stands to benefit might amount to state aid?

What new facts have emerged since November 1999 to prevent the complaint from being dismissed?

Bearing in mind the case-law of the Court of Justice and the amount of time that has elapsed, should the
complaint not be dismissed or an investigation into this case formally opened,
in which event those
concerned could present their arguments?

Does the Commission not take the view that the uncertainty surrounding this case could harm the
company(cid:146)s viability?

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 111.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

According to the Spanish authorities, which were questioned specifically on this point in the course of the
investigation following the complainant(cid:146)s allegations, no guarantee benefiting Terra Mitica has been
granted by the Generalitat Valenciana.

On 23 March 2000 the Director of the State Aid I Directorate of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for
Competition informed the complainant that at this stage in the procedure he was not in a position to
conclude that state aid had been granted benefiting Terra Mitica. He invited the complainant to make new
allegations to him, failing which the case would be closed. The complainant duly did so by letters dated
18 April, 4 May and 25 May 2000. These new allegations are still being examined by the Commission.

In view of the above,
the Commission does not rule out initiating the procedure provided for in
Article 88(2) (formerly Article 93) of the EC Treaty with respect to some of the complainant(cid:146)s allegations.
This would allow the parties concerned to submit their comments.

The Commission does not consider that the investigation into this case could have affected the viability of
the enterprise. Moreover, it notes that the park was opened at the end of July 2000 and is functioning
normally.

(2001/C 235 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/01

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Applications for assistance from the Cohesion Fund

(9 February 2001)

Which regions of those Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund have submitted projects with a view
to obtaining assistance from the Fund, and which of these projects have been approved?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

The Commission would point out that applications to finance projects from the Cohesion Fund are
submitted to it by the Member State and not by the regions. The Commission is therefore unaware of the
projects submitted by the regions to the national authorities.

C 235 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

All the projects approved since 1993 are listed in the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund for 1997, 1998
and 1999. A copy of these reports has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat.

(2001/C 235 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/01

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Cities benefiting from the URBAN Community initiative

(9 February 2001)

55 cities already benefit from the URBAN Community initiative. According to Commissioner Barnier, this
number has now risen to seventy.

Will the Commission say which additional cities now benefit from this initiative and state the criteria on
which their inclusion has been based?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

In its communication of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the URBAN II Community Initiative (1),
the Commission proposed that total assistance from the European Regional Development Fund would
amount to € 700 million for the 2000-2006 programming period and that around 55 urban areas,
distributed as in Annex II, would be covered.

Under point 28 of that communication, the Commission has accepted requests from the Member States for
that number to be increased. In the case of each request for an increase, account has been taken of the
number of areas originally fixed, the level of financial resources originally allocated, the extent of the urban
problems, the large number of applications received by the national authorities under URBAN II and
compliance with the threshold of € 500 per inhabitant and 20 000 inhabitants per urban area.

Following the requests sent to the Commission, the total number of urban areas was extended to 70,
distributed as follows:

Member State

Original
number

Final
number

B (cid:129) Belgium

DK (cid:129) Denmark

D (cid:129) Germany

EL (cid:129) Greece

E (cid:129) Spain

F (cid:129) France

IRL (cid:129) Ireland

I (cid:129) Italy

L (cid:129) Luxembourg

NL (cid:129) Netherlands

A (cid:129) Austria

P (cid:129) Portugal

FI (cid:129) Finland

S (cid:129) Sweden

UK (cid:129) United Kingdom

2

1

10

2

8

7

1

8

(cid:129)

2

1

2

1

1

9

3

1

12

3

10

9

1

10

(cid:129)

3

2

3

1

1

11