WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Combination of parliamentary democracy with the right to decentralised decisions and diversity within a new institutional structure of the EU.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Constitution, concentration of powers, democratic deficit, division of powers, institutional structure, interinstitutional relations (EU), legislative-executive relations, powers of the EP

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/27

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

On 2 October 2002 the Commission approved planned aid of EUR 74,5 million for the firm Fibre Ottiche
Sud in respect of a EUR 167,4 million investment project at Battipaglia, Campania, an assisted region in
southern Italy. The project should create 311 direct jobs and 108 indirect jobs. The Commission took its
decision under the rules laid down in the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment
projects (1).

The Commission’s general objective in implementing the multisectoral framework is to limit aid for large-
scale projects in such a way as to avoid as much as possible adverse effects on competition while at the
same time maintaining the attraction of the assisted area. In the case under consideration, the maximum
admissible aid intensity was 28 % net grant equivalent (corresponding to the investment’s gross intensity
(44,5 %), discounted and less taxes).

The Commission is not aware that Pirelli’s investment constitutes a transfer of production from the United
Kingdom to Italy. It should also be pointed out that the investment project involves the extension of an
existing fibre optic plant.

(1) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

(2003/C 280 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Combination of parliamentary democracy with the right to decentralised decisions and diversity

within a new institutional structure of the EU

Does the Commission agree that there is a need to defend, vis-à-vis the framework for a new
1.
administrative structure devised by the Convention on the Future of Europe which concentrates power in
the combined national governments, Heads of Government and a President appointed from among them, a
model of parliamentary democracy such as exists in the Member States with the usual distribution between
preparation and implementation by a day-to-day administration together with a broad decision-making
process on guidelines by means of a Parliament elected by all those eligible to vote?

2. Why, on 5 December 2002, in his justified attempt to defend parliamentary democracy against a
regression into previous authoritarian administrative forms, did the President of the Commission give the
impression that he was coupling such defence with further centralisation and harmonisation within the EU
instead of the common resolution of our large-scale and cross-border environmental, humans rights,
transfrontier work, transport and tax haven problems?

3.
Is the President aware that, by causing the impression referred to in question 2, he was making the
less democratic alternative of a ‘Europe of governments of states’ unnecessarily attractive for those who,
within the collectivity of Europe, are attached to the preservation of scope for decision-making at the
lowest possible level and the right to diversity of the participating nations?

4.
Apart from his personal preferences, does the President feel that a new institutional structure is
possible in which parliamentary democracy, the protection of national parliaments and the right to
diversity go hand-in-hand with decentralised decision-making on the basis of subsidiarity or a ‘catalogue of
competences’ for the allocation of tasks between the EU and the Member States?

C 280 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

In its attempts to convince a majority of the Convention, is the Commission prepared to emphasise
5.
guarantees of a normal distribution of tasks between Parliament and day-to-day administration and not
variants which sow discord among the probable majority which seeks to defend parliamentary democracy
against an authoritarian administrative form based on opaque private agreements between national
governments?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

In its communication to the European Convention on the institutional architecture of the Union (1), the
Commission stressed its attachment to the ‘Community method’, which is based on a balance between the
institutions in the different phases of the decision-making process, from conception to implementation of
EU policies. It takes the view that the roles and responsibilities of each institution must be clarified without
upsetting the current institutional balance.

On 5 December 2002, when the communication was presented to the European Convention, the President
of the Commission reaffirmed the Commission’s intention to ‘consolidate a Union of peoples and of States
that is the first true supranational democracy’.

from its proposals to the Convention, both in the
The Commission considers that
the
communication referred to above and in the communication it presented at
Convention’s deliberations (2),
in no way intends to increase the level of centralisation and
harmonisation but, rather, that the essential challenge for the Union is to meet the public’s concrete
expectations while respecting the diversity of national, regional and local identities.

the beginning of

is clear

that

it

it

To this end, it will be necessary not only to make a clearer distinction than is currently the case between
legislative and executive functions at Union level (cid:1) and the role of each institution in these functions (cid:1)
but also to involve national parliaments more closely in managing European affairs.

(1) Communication of 4 December 2002, ‘For the European Union: Peace, Freedom, Solidarity’, COM(2002) 728 final.
(2) Communication of 22 May 2002, ‘A project for the European Union’, COM(2002) 247 final.

(2003/C 280 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/02

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Infringement proceedings

On 13 November 2002, the European Commission took the decision to withdraw its application to the
European Court of Justice for the imposition of a daily fine on France for failure to implement the
Judgment of the Court (C-1/00) of 13 December 2001 ordering France to lift the British beef embargo.

In the light of this and other cases, the Commission stated that it will re-examine its approach to the
application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

Does the Commission agree that the present possibilities available to it to pursue compliance with EU
legislation by a Member State are insufficient to have a deterrent effect on Member States, and therefore
need to be reinforced in some way?

Is the Commission intending to bring forward proposals in this respect, bearing in mind the increasing gap
in implementation shown in the recent Internal Market scoreboard report?

Does the Commission agree that lump sum or daily penalty payments (Article 228(2)) can be avoided by
Member States exploiting the legal process, and that this sends the wrong message to Europe’s citizens?