WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/01 by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU enlargement: fundamental impact on local and regional authorities in the acceding countries as implementing and authorising bodies — need for new administrative structures and capacities.
Date: 2001-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, accession to the European Union, administrative structures, application of EU law, cross-border cooperation, enlargement of the Union, regional and local authorities, technical cooperation

C 81 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

It is the Commission(cid:146)s political goal that fees of cross-border and domestic transfers should converge. This
has been repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions; e.g. in the Communication (cid:145)Retail Payments
in the Internal Market(cid:146) of January 2000, in the reply of the Commission responsible for Internal Market,
Taxation and Customs Union on the Peijs-Report
in the
Commission(cid:146)s Round Table Conference (cid:145)Establishing a Single Payment Area(cid:146) on 9 November 2000 as well
as in the Report on the Preparations for the Introduction of euro notes and coins of 3 April 2001.

in the Parliament on 26 October 2000,

It had always been the Commission(cid:146)s strong belief that the determination of charges and fees should be left
to competition and market forces and that European legislation should not aim at price regulation. The
Commission has therefore for more than a decade urged the banking industry to make the necessary
investments for efficient and automated (hence cheaper) cross-border payment systems. The Commission
acknowledges the banks(cid:146) efforts in order to provide cheaper cross-border payments to their customers,
especially in connection with implementing the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and the Bank
Identifier Code (BIC).

However, given that all former (cid:129) non-legislative (cid:129) efforts to lower charges for cross-border payments
remained virtually ineffective, the Commission has adopted on 25 July 2001 a proposal for a regulation on
charges for cross-border payments (1). The proposed Regulation aims at a reduction of charges for cross-
border payments of up to € 50 000 in euro, so that by 1 January 2002 (concerning electronic payment
transactions), respectively by 1 January 2003 (concerning cross-border credit transfers and cross-border
cheques) charges would be aligned to those for corresponding payments at national level.

The Commission is aware that banks face various external costly obstacles and obligations, which are
presently (cid:129) at least partly (cid:129) responsible for the existing difference of charges. The proposed regulation
includes measures to remove these obstacles.

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.

(2002/C 81 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/01

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: EU enlargement: fundamental impact on local and regional authorities in the acceding countries as

implementing and authorising bodies (cid:129) need for new administrative structures and capacities

The incomplete implementation of EU law is being confirmed in every acceding country in annual
progress reports by the EU Commission; the problems lie predominantly with local and regional structures.
At the same time however the assimilation capacity of national administrations appears to be posing a
growing problem. Attention has already been drawn to this by the EP, the CoR and national urban
networks. One response to the situation has for example been the Local and Regional Partnership
Programme (LRPP), an initiative that seeks to extend partnerships to include efforts to promote the
implementation of EU law locally at other than national level.

1. What difficulties are responsible, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, for the fact that in the acceding countries
regional and local measures are being implemented only in isolated instances, even although the 1999
Phare implementing provisions explicitly specify institution-building operations at regional level?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that its current initiatives and mechanisms (partnerships, the
new (cid:145)twinning light(cid:146), Interreg IIIc, ISPA and Sapard) are insufficient to make good existing deficiencies in
local and regional government capacities of the acceding countries? How is the Commission planning to
strengthen local-government capacity for implementing EU law in the those countries?

3.
Does the Commission recognise that the most approachable and least costly sources of experience in
local and regional government for the acceding countries are their counterparts in the EU? Why is the
Commission not actively supporting such partnerships by drawing on existing budget entries, as already
called for by the EP in the Brok report (cid:129) A5-0250/2000, paragraph 106?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/61

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Regional and local authorities in candidate countries may have an important role to play in adopting and
implementing the Acquis, depending on the structure of the country concerned. While the main effort for
establishing and developing regional and local structures and for enhancing their capacities will need to
come from the candidate countries themselves, all PHARE national programmes include a wide range of
Institution Building measures, notably through (cid:145)twinning(cid:146), and support to Investment in Economic and
Social Cohesion, in line with the PHARE Guidelines of 13 October 1999 (1). In border regions, regional
and local authorities are actively involved in programming and implementing PHARE Cross Border
Cooperation projects.

As PHARE is moving towards the Structural Funds, including decentralised management, and twinning was
made more flexible and allows for shorter term assignments, reflecting regional and local authorities(cid:146)
needs, it is expected that these authorities(cid:146) involvement in PHARE programmes will continue to increase.

The two other pre-accession assistance instruments Sapard and ISPA will also contribute to enhancing
capacities at the local and regional
level. Under ISPA, technical assistance will be made available to
beneficiaries, including local institutions, to assist in enhancing their administrative capacity for managing
projects in the fields of transport and environment,
including supervision and financial control. This
technical assistance will also help preparing to manage Community assistance for regional development
becoming available upon accession. The Sapard programmes for agriculture and rural development, which
are subject to fully decentralised management and follow rules similar to those applied to Member States,
may also contribute to regional and local authorities(cid:146) better knowledge and understanding of certain
aspects of Community law, notably in relation with the Community Agricultural Policy, and help with
preparation of administrative structures for Union accession.

The Commission has thus made available a wide range of pre-accession tools which will support candidate
in the context of the
countries(cid:146) own efforts to raise capacities at the regional and local
Communication on Border Regions adopted by the Commission on 25 July 2001,
it is envisaged to
provide funding from Phare CBC for co-financing Interreg III C programmes, allowing regional and local
authorities from member States and candidate countries to engage into networking and exchange of best
practice in the course of 2002.

level. Lastly,

(1) SEC(1999) 1596 final.

(2002/C 81 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/01

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Fur farming in the European Union

Can the Commission indicate the quantity and type of fish that are fed to animals in fur farms in each
Member State and how that usage relates to the current fishing agreements?

Does the Commission monitor what happens to the skinned carcasses which are the by-product of fur
farms, whether these enter the human or animal food chain, and whether safety precautions are enforced?

Is the Commission aware that Greece receives subsidises for processing fur? Can the Commission explain
in brief how the fur farming industry operates within the context of EU policies for products derived from
animals?