WRITTEN QUESTION E-0439/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Europartenariat programme.
Date: 2001-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, inter-company cooperation, project evaluation, regional aid, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 235 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

these conclusions at a time when no party had an absolute majority. Because no new information or
additional evidence has emerged since the investigation,
it has not thought fit to set up a second
committee of inquiry.

The Treaty of Nice stipulates that the role of the national parliaments in relation to the European
Parliament is to be reviewed at the next intergovernmental conference.

Bearing that point in mind, and the fact that ratification of the Treaty of Nice by the national parliaments
is well under way, does the Commission believe that the European Parliament can set itself up as a higher
court to sit in judgment on matters already dealt with by national parliaments, as was the case with the
alleged political responsibility of the present Commission Vice-President at the time when she headed
a Spanish ministry?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the conclusions reached on 17 August 1999 by the temporary committee of
inquiry set up by the Spanish Government, which exonerated the Minister of Agriculture from all political
responsibility in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission attaches great importance to the contribution made by national parliaments to the
construction of Europe and recalls that the Treaty contains a protocol on the role of national parliaments
in the European Union. Moreover, one of the topics to be examined as part of the wider and more in-
depth debate which has been taking place since the negotiation of the Nice Treaty will be the role of
national parliaments within the European architecture.

The Commission does not wish to speculate on hypothetical situations. On the contrary, it recently stated
in its answer to Oral Question H-0059/01 that it felt that it was of prime importance to ensure that any
debate on matters such as those referred to in the Oral Question by the Honourable Member were based
on objective and tangible facts.

(2001/C 235 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0439/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Europartenariat programme

The European Commission recently took a decision to end the Europartenariat programme. This
programme has provided excellent contact and networking opportunities for many small and medium-
sized companies in South-West England, and they are dismayed to learn of its abolition.

Would the Commission indicate:

1. When this decision was taken?

2. Why the Commission is no longer continuing with this programme?

3. Whether the it plans to replace this programme with a new and comparable scheme?

4. Given that an evaluation study is currently taking place at a cost of GBP 200 000, why it decided to

close the programme before this evaluation had been completed?

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/207

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

1. and 2.
The Commission has been reviewing its priorities and the means it has to carry out its work.
In this context, and following the work of the Peer Group as set out in the Communication from the
Commission of 26 July 2000 (cid:145)Matching the Commission(cid:146)s activities with its human resources(cid:146),
it has
decided that it will no longer be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events (1).

The Commission will not prepare a specific programme to financially support Europartenariat-type
3.
events. It will continue its efforts aimed at facilitating co-operation between companies and promoting
internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by other means.

In the context of regional policy, support to SMEs remains an objective eligible for structural funds.

4.
The objective of the Europartenariat evaluation study that is being carried out is to examine the
impact that the programme Europartenariat has had over the 10-12 year period of its existence, and to
suggest improvements to the formula. The decision of the Commission not to continue investing its own
resources in managing this programme does not preclude that the formula developed over the years may
be used by other
interested parties, particularly those that have recognised the benefits of past
programmes. In this context the evaluation will be a useful tool for such interests. The Commission is
ready to make available the management tools it has developed, such as the organisers guide and the
software package, to new organisers.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000.

(2001/C 235 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0442/01

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: UK responsibility for dealing with the BSE crisis

(16 February 2001)

Does the Commission not consider it essential to bring an action before the European Court of Justice to
ensure that the United Kingdom answers for the negligence and misconduct which caused the spread of
BSE?

Such action appears all the more justified following publication of the report by the committee of inquiry
chaired by Lord Philips and in view of the high number of victims who live in Member States other than
the United Kingdom and are not covered by the British compensation scheme.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission can only bring a Member State before the Court of Justice for failure to comply with an
obligation under the EC Treaty if the conditions laid down in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty
are fulfilled.

These conditions are as follows:

1. The Commission has to believe that the Member State has failed to comply with a Community law

obligation;

2. The Member State must firstly be given the opportunity to submit its observations;

3. The Commission should thereafter have delivered a reasoned opinion which the Member State has

failed to comply with.