WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Failure to award Urban II funding for the city of Rome.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU financing arrangements, EU initiative, Italy, town planning

C 52 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission decision is fully in line with the communication of 10 October 2001 ‘The repercussions
of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry’ (1), in which it accepted that some
types of aid, including those for costs caused by the closure of airspace, may be awarded exceptionally to
the air transport sector ‘to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’
(in the words of Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty).

Nonetheless, the Commission took the view that a number of objective conditions had to be met before
authorising such emergency aid schemes.

The German scheme meets all the required criteria:

(cid:1) compensation is paid only for the costs incurred during the four days in question following the

grounding of air traffic decided by the American authorities,

(cid:1) compensation is calculated objectively on the basis of the loss of revenue during that period, adjusted

according to the costs avoided or additional costs incurred,

(cid:1) compensation is paid in a non-discriminatory manner to all German airlines.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2003/C 52 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Failure to award Urban II funding for the city of Rome

In the context of the last Urban programme the city of Rome accumulated severe delays in the execution
of the project and this even led to a partial reduction in the funding initially granted. Under the current
Urban II the city of Rome, according to information issued by the Italian Ministry for Infrastructure and
Transport and data supplied by the Commission website, is totally excluded from any funding, since it is
not included either among the first 10 European recipient cities or the 20 cities subsequently included in
the Urban II programme for Italy (Law 388/2000). The city of Rome is apparently in 39th place on the
official
list. Urban is undoubtedly one of the most efficient EU programmes so far and is a valuable
instrument for the development of the suburbs of major metropolitan areas and, in general, the urban
areas affected by environmental and social problems (cid:1) for example, Milan is the second city on the list.

In view of the above, can the Commission say for what reasons (defects in form or substance, delayed
submission of the application, inappropriate or inadequate documentation, etc.) the project submitted by
the city of Rome proved unsuitable to receive funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

After the Commission issued its Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down
guidelines for the Urban II Community Initiative (1), the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport published,
in the Italian Gazzetta ufficiale No 168 of 20 July 2000, a call for proposals in order to select the Italian
towns eligible for finance under the Urban II Community Initiative.

This announcement correctly reflected the eligibility criteria set out
in the above Commission
Communication and further specified the arrangements for evaluation and selection used by the Italian
Ministry for the general ordering by merit of the applications received. On that basis, the national
authorities classified these applications, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Given the amount
of funding allocated to Italy for Urban II and the aim of concentrating assistance on a limited number of

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/129

areas, Community finance was allocated only to the towns and cities in the top ten places; the Italian
authorities have submitted the relevant programmes to the Commission in accordance with Article 19 of
the Communication.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are
involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection
UNICEF has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which
children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is
not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been
complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war
footing.
In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister
(and, where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the
adoption process?

Reply

(11 November 2002)

The Council does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the ongoing adoption process.

(2003/C 52 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2089/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the Benes Decrees, the 1946 Amnesty Law and the 1992 Restitution Law with

EU law

On 2 June 2002, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an interview with Commissioner
Verheugen concerning the compatibility of the Benes decrees with EU law. In reply to the question
whether the 1946 law granting amnesty still had legal effect to this day, Mr Verheugen answered that it
was not a question of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in connection with driving out
the Germans. The intention was to give resistance fighters legal protection. Acts committed on the basis of
dishonourable motives did not fall within that law. Mr Verheugen went on to say that in so far as these
laws still had legal effect, they would be brought into line with EU law by means of individual measures
and other steps in the Czech Republic.

In an article on 18 August 1995, the FAZ reported the case of a Czech citizen who had shot dead and
buried 14 people in Schwarzbach on 24 May 1945. On 16 March 1992, the Ceské Budejovice district
court ruled that the perpetrator of this crime was not subject to prosecution.

On 11 June 2002,
Reifferscheid the restitution of his property (FAZ, 14 June 2002).

the Czech Interior Minister, citing Decree No 33/1945, refused Count Salm-

In the Commission’s view, is the current use of the 1946 amnesty law by Czech case law contrary to the
principles laid down in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union?