WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/01 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Operational programmes for the Land of Thuringia.
Date: 2001-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Thuringia, operational programme

C 340 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

4. What institution should take action in order to prevent Italian firms, who are being charged these

rates, from being disadvantaged compared with their European competitors;

5. What steps it intends to take in order to ensure that such systems cannot be operated in Italy or the

other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission already stated in its answers to Parliamentary Questions P-4157/00 (1) and P-0118/01 (2)
by Mr Nobilia that the definition of usury rates in Italy in relation to the interest rates applied by banks is
the subject of a complaint by Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), Associazione Italiana Banche Estere
(AIBE) and the European Banking Federation (EBF). The Commission gave the Italian Government until
20 February 2001 to present its observations, but this was extended by one month to take account of the
parliamentary process for the conversion of Decree-Law No 394 of 29 December 2000 so that the
question could be examined in detail, with due regard for the new provisions of conversion Law No 24
approved on 28 February 2001. Once the Commission has analysed the observations of the Italian
Government, it should be in a position to carry out an in-depth assessment of usury-related practices by
the Italian banks with reference also to the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

It must, however, be pointed out from the outset that the definition of the crime of usury and of the
parameters for determining the interest rates charged are matters of criminal law and are the responsibility
of the individual Member States. The Community institutions act in this area, on a case by case basis, only
to the extent that national measures are contrary to the principles of Community law.

In general, as regards interest rates charged by banks, the Commission bases its action on the principle of
an economic policy which is founded on the internal market and conducted in accordance with the
principles of an open and competitive market economy. It is thus up to each credit institution to formulate
in
its own commercial policy on the basis of its assessment of the market and the risks involved,
accordance with the provisions applicable, especially the rules on competition and the principles of
transparent transactions.

As regards the problem of compound interest, the Commission has responded to a complaint from an
Italian consumers association by launching a survey to determine whether the EC Treaty rules on
competition have been infringed.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 241.
(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 190.

(2001/C 340 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/01

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Operational programmes for the Land of Thuringia

(6 March 2001)

When was the operational programme (OP) for 2000-2006 for Thuringia submitted to the Commission
for confirmation?

Did the Commission make any additional requests (if so, how many) to complement the information
contained in the OP?

When did the Land government last provide complementary information on the OP?

When, in the Commission(cid:146)s opinion, was the programme ready for confirmation?

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/61

Is it true that the Commission has made countless requests for further information in respect of the OPs
for the new L(cid:228)nder that have been submitted, and that there have been delays in confirmation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

On 8 November 1999, the Commission received the draft operational programme (OP) for Thuringia from
the German federal authorities.

The Community support framework (CSF) for Germany, co-ordinating all Community structural assistance
including assistance for the development of human resources in the regions concerned, was adopted by the
Commission in June 2000 (1).

After examination of the draft OP, the Commission sent its remarks to Thuringia in August 2000. After
bilateral
talks in Brussels on 24 October 2000, the final version of the OP was submitted to the
Commission on 28 November 2000 and adopted on 15 December 2000.

Following the Commission(cid:146)s letter of 29 November 2000 addressed to both German federal and regional
authorities, the date of 22 November 1999 has been laid down for the eligibility of expenditure.

the new programming period 2000-2006,

The introduction of
involving adaptation and uniform
application of the new Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (2), has presented a real challenge to the Member States and the
Commission. In comparison with the other regions eligible under Objective 1, the new German L(cid:228)nder
have not been especially affected by additional questions, requests for further information or delays.

(1) OJ L 318, 16.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 340 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Lisbon European Council and investment

(8 March 2001)

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member
States where appropriate to (cid:145)improve the environment for private research investment, R & D partnerships
and high technology start-ups, by using tax policies, venture capital and EIB support.(cid:146) What progress,
particularly in terms of concrete examples, has been made since the Lisbon summit in this area?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

As the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council state, the steps to be taken to establish a European
Research Area involve efforts to be undertaken by the Commission, the Council and, where appropriate,
the Member States themselves. The problems, long identified, relating to lack of investment in R & D, in
particular private investment, as well as the need for investment to encourage R & D partnerships and high
technology start-ups, have to be tackled in the main at Member State level
in the area of tax
incentives), together with some incitement from the Commission.

(e.g.

The Council itself can only but applaud whatever initiatives are taken to encourage, in particular, private
investment in R & D activities.