Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking"
Date: 2002-05-15
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European Space Agency, administrative structures, company structure, joint venture, legal status, satellite communications

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/5

proportions. It should again be stressed that less favoured
regions in particular will have opportunities only if they tap
new forms of innovation. Benchmarking based on experience
and best practice is not very helpful for these regions, as

outstanding examples (such as Martinsried) cannot be copied.
The regions must be involved in the development of appropri-
ate methods, tailored to their environment, drawing on their
experience and using comparable instruments.

Brussels, 16 May 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking’

(2002/C 278/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint
Undertaking [COM(2001) 336 final — 2001/0136 (CNS)];

having regard to the decision of the Commission of 25 June 2001, under the first paragraph of Article 265
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the subject;

having regard to the decisions of its bureau of 12 June 2001 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-
European Networks, Transport and the Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion, and of
6 February 2002 to instruct the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up the relevant
opinion;

having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Cologne European Council (3 and 4 June 1999) and
the Feira European Council (19 and 20 June 2000) with regard to Galileo;

having regard to the Council Resolution of 5 April 2001;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (1) on
5 March 2002 (CdR 380/2001 rev. 2) (rapporteur: Mr Tabakídis, EL-PES, Mayor of Agii Anargyri);

whereas the first contracts and feasibility studies were funded under the Fourth and Fifth R&D Framework
Programmes;

whereas the definition phase of Galileo was completed in April 2001, and the programme moved onto
the next stage, testing and confirming the validity of the working assumptions adopted, particularly those
regarding the architecture of the system;

whereas the definition phase will be followed by the system development phase involving production of
satellites and terrestrial components, satellites launchings, and installation of remaining equipment, so
that the system will be operational in 2008;

(1) New organisation of the commissions and their remits, 6 February 2002.

C 278/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

whereas Galileo contains a strong R&D component, which justifies the establishment of a joint
undertaking under Article 171 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

whereas the purpose of the joint undertaking is the successful implementation of the Galileo system’s
development phase and to ensure an effective combination of private and public capital,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 44th plenary session of 15 and 16 May 2002 (meeting
of 15 May).

The Committee of the Regions recommends the following:

1.
The joint undertaking must operate in keeping with all
the rules of transparency and equal treatment laid down by
Community legislation.

The rules for award of contracts in connection with the
2.
joint undertaking must comply with the relevant Community
law.

Political control on the part the EU Member States must

3.
be ensured at every stage of system implementation.

4.
If the involvement of the Member States is to be effective,
there must be a specific follow-up committee made up
of representatives of the Member States and of the joint

undertaking. The follow-up committee must be able to finally
reject European Commission proposals.

5.
The follow-up committee should be principally respon-
sible for policy decisions, while the administrative board
should be responsible for decisions on the day-to-day running
of the joint undertaking and for meeting the objectives set.

6.
The European Space Agency will be represented on the
administrative board and will also have a major part to play in
providing technical support
for the joint undertaking in
achieving its objectives.

The statutes of the joint undertaking must clarify the role

7.
of each body and define their powers.

8. Matters concerning copyright and ownership of services
should be made very clear.

Brussels, 15 May 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE