WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Sixth R & D framework programme.
Date: 2001-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, research and development, research budget

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/147

(2001/C 318 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Sixth R & D framework programme

The United States is planning to double its science and technology investment within ten years and is
already producing a third of the world(cid:146)s science compared with just 17 % in 1970. The picture is similar
where industry is concerned: the world(cid:146)s ten biggest biotechnology companies are American.

On Wednesday, 21 February 2000 the Commission approved its proposed research policy for the period
from 2002 to 2006. The budget, if taken together with the budget for the Euratom nuclear programme,
amounts to a 17 % increase on the current programme. In 1999 Europe allocated 1,8 % of its GDP to
research, whereas the United States achieved a figure of 2,7 %.

Does the Commission believe that the budget will be sufficient to catch up with the United States during
the next four years? Leaving aside the Sixth framework programme, how effectively does the Commission
think that the different national programmes can foster the transnational character of science, apart from
providing further help in narrowing the gap between the European and US research budgets? How much
priority does the Commission think that the applicant countries are according to research as they prepare
to join the Union? To what extent will the Sixth framework programme make good the deficiencies
revealed in the Socrates programme between 1995 and 1999 as far as student and teacher mobility is
concerned?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

As highlighted in the European Research Area initiative (1), the framework programme represents only
5,4 % of the overall public sector effort on research and development in Europe. Comparisons between the
overall research effort in Europe and the United States therefore need to take account of the much larger
budgets devoted to national research programmes. They also need to take into account private sector
in which the gap between Europe and the United States is
investment in research and development,
particularly wide. The importance of incentives to encourage private sector research,
including fiscal
measures, was also highlighted in the European Research Area. As far as the framework programme itself
is concerned, the Commission is proposing to increase the effectiveness of its expenditure by concentrating
funds on a more limited number of priorities of particular importance at European level. In addition, new
instruments are proposed for implementing the programme, which are designed to have a more
structuring effect on research in Europe and streamline its management.

Given the importance of national research programmes for the overall research effort in Europe, the new
framework programme proposal (2) includes, for the first time, measures in this context. These include
benchmarking national research policies, strengthening the coordination of research activities carried out
at national level, and encouraging Member States to open these activities up to researchers from other
countries. Community participation in national programmes under Article 169 (ex Article 130 L) of the
EC Treaty is also proposed.

As far as the enlargement process is concerned, research is considered as a priority in candidate countries
in so far as they fully participate already in the activities of the framework programme. Moreover,
following the Council(cid:146)s Resolution of 15 June 2000 (3), the Commission has jointly defined with the
candidate countries measures to stimulate and enhance their participation in the European Research Area.
These include information campaigns,
training, partner search assistance, and association with the
initiatives on benchmarking national research policies and mapping of excellence.

The Commission has proposed to more than double the resources allocated to human resources and
mobility in the new framework programme proposal. Under this priority, mobility opportunities for
individual researchers will be enhanced. This will be accompanied by increased transnational access to
important research facilities and infrastructures, as well as a new instrument of networks of excellence with

C 318 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

an important component designed to better integrate research teams in Europe and strengthen mobility.
Following the Council Resolution of 15 June 2000, the Member of the Commission responsible for
research convened the High-Level Expert Group on Improving Mobility of Researchers with representatives
from the Member States, to help prepare an analysis of obstacles to mobility with a view to the
Commission presenting proposals in June 2001.

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.
(2) COM(2001) 94 final.
(3) OJ C 205, 19.7.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0900/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Progress in the case against Deutsche Post

On 20 July 1999, in response to a complaint lodged in 1994, the Commission started an investigation
into the activities of Deutsche Post, particularly to ascertain whether Deutsche Post was subsidising its
commercial activities with revenue from its monopoly on the delivery of letters. At the same time, the
Commission is investigating whether Deutsche Post has used monopoly revenue to finance take-overs. On
9 November 2000 a hearing was held at which it was apparent that the Commission already had all the
requisite information concerning the case.

Now that nearly twenty months have elapsed since the opening of the procedure, what is preventing the
Commission from taking a decision on this case? Is the Commission taking account of the fact that, since
the complaint was lodged, Deutsche Post has acquired other businesses and that other postal operators are
following this (cid:145)example(cid:146), with the result that by the time the deadline arrives for complete liberalisation of
postal services, there will no longer be any market to be liberalised?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

As stated by the Honourable Member the Commission adopted on 20 July 1999 the decision to open
a formal State aid procedure under Article 88 (2) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty regarding Deutsche Post
AG (1). The procedure covers the whole range of State aid allegations concerning Deutsche Post AG: use of
revenues of the monopoly letter service to cover losses of parcel activities, use of such revenues for
acquisitions, use of transferred real estate to finance acquisitions, existence of state guarantee for debts and
the coverage of pension obligations by the state.

Since the State aid examination is still pending no indication about the likely result can be given. Of
course, the Commission will fulfil its duty under the competition rules of the EC Treaty to ensure fair
competition on a level playing field in this important sector of the economy while at the same time not
challenging the provision of universal postal services.

As regards acquisitions by Deutsche Post AG, such transactions fall under the jurisdiction of
the
Commission according to the Merger Regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) no 4064/89 of 21 December
1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2). These transactions are examined and
decided by the Commission in the same way as other transactions when applying the requirements of the
Merger Regulation.

It should also be remarked that the oral hearing mentioned in the question was part of an anti-trust
investigation concerning Deutsche Post AG, which has to be seen independent of the State aid procedure.
The Commission now has concluded its antitrust investigation into Deutsche Post AG with a decision