WRITTEN QUESTION E-2472/03 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE),Alima Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE), Patsy Sörensen (Verts/ALE)and Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Regions adjacent to the enlarged Union's external borders.
Date: 2003-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belarus, EU programme, Moldova, Ukraine, aid policy, coordination of financing, cross-border cooperation, enlargement of the Union, external border of the EU, frontier region

C 70 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Will the Commission please confirm that, in the case of the first the interoperability certificate to be
granted, the interoperability certificate referred to in Requirement 271 is the definitive certificate defined in
Requirement 292 and not the provisional certificate from Requirement 291?

If the Commission is not able to confirm that a definitive interoperability certificate is needed prior to issue
of the first type approval certificate(s), then would they please explain how this ‘exceptional procedure’ is
to be interpreted?

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 207, 5.8.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

According to paragraph 1.1 of Appendix 9 of Annex 1B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of
13 June 2002 adapting for the seventh time to technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
on recording equipment in road transport, EEC type approval for recording equipment or tachograph
cards is based on a security certification, a functional certification and an interoperability certification.

Chapter VIII of Annex 1B describes the interoperability certification process. The aim of this chapter is to
ensure full interoperability of all registered recording equipment and cards and to ensure fair competition
between manufacturers. Full interoperability cannot be ensured until definitive interoperability certificates
have been delivered.

According to the interoperability procedure, tests will start as soon as requests for the first recording
equipment and tachograph cards have been registered at the laboratory in charge. Up until four months
after the first couple has been certified to be interoperable, any interoperability certificates delivered,
including the first ones, shall be considered provisional. If at the end of this period all products are
interoperability certificates shall become definitive. If, however,
mutually interoperable, all provisional
interoperability faults are found during this period the laboratory shall invite the manufacturers to make
modifications. The search for solutions shall last for a maximum of two months.

According to the provisions of Chapter VIII of Annex 1B, modifications can be imposed on manufacturers
as long as the interoperability certification process has not been completed. During this period all
interoperability certificates are considered provisional. Obviously, given the fact that during this period
modifications can be imposed and thus full
interoperability cannot be ensured, no products shall be
brought on the market. Type approval shall therefore only be granted on the basis of a definitive
interoperability certificate.

(2004/C 70 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2472/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE),
Alima Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE), Patsy Sörensen (Verts/ALE)
and Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

Subject: Regions adjacent to the enlarged Union’s external borders

(24 July 2003)

The current process of enlargement towards the east will,
in the near future, alter the EU’s political,
economic and social makeup, as harmonisation, protection and transitional aid measures are applied in the
applicant central European and Baltic countries.

Given their particular sensitivity to this process of economic alignment, during the successive enlargements
of the EU the eastern border regions of the Member States (1) and, subsequently, the applicant countries,
have benefited from special programmes and aid intended to guard against and mitigate imbalances and
socio-economic repercussions within their borders. The western border regions of the European countries

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/107

neighbouring the enlarged EU, such as Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, are primarily and intrinsically
dependent on the interregional economy and trade with their many partners on the EU side of the border.
These three eastern European countries, which form part of our continent’s history and identity, are
directly concerned by the implications of the EU enlargement process at all levels. The current Moldovan
and Belarussian governments’ predecessors clearly stated their wish to join the EU, and this has remained a
priority for the current Ukrainian Government.

On 11 February 2003 the European Parliament adopted a report by Pedro Marset Campos on ‘relations
between the European Union and Belarus: towards a future partnership’,
in which it called on the
Commission, ‘in order to prevent any cracks from appearing in the economic or social structure at the
future eastern border of the enlarged EU and to curb smuggling and immigration, to develop Community
financial programmes and support for the western regions of the new neighbours to the East, Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova, on the same scale as those already being implemented in the eastern regions of the
neighbouring candidate countries’.

1. What interregional programmes does the Council intend to implement with a view to providing
support for symmetrical social and economic development on both sides of the EU’s future eastern border
so as to guard against a widening gulf between the new Member States and Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus?

2. What preventive measures does it intend to take in order to protect cross-border trade in this region,
a trade which, in Ukraine, accounts for one third of imports and provides a livelihood for 20 % of the
population, and which is directly threatened by the introduction of visas on 1 July 2004?

3. Would the Council not agree that in order to maintain and foster the existing social and economic
links between the applicant countries and these eastern European partners coordination between the
if necessary,
PHARE and TACIS and Interreg and PHARE-CBC programmes should be optimised and,
reorganised?

(1) An action plan for regions bordering on applicant countries was adopted on 25 July 2001.

Reply

(5 December 2003)

The European Council in Thessaloniki confirmed the EU engagement regarding its neighbours, whose
stability and prosperity is inextricably linked to that of the EU, and looked forward to the work to be
undertaken by the Council and the Commission in putting together the various elements of
the
neighbourhood policies. The European Council also endorsed the conclusions on Wider Europe (cid:1) New
Neighbourhood adopted by the Council on 16 June last.

In order to implement the conclusions of 16 June 2003, the Council invited the Commission to present
proposals for Action Plans from 2004 onwards for all countries concerned, to examine measures to
improve the interoperability between the different relevant instruments for support to the border areas as
well as to present a communication on a possible new Neighbourhood Instrument. On 1 July last, the
Commission adopted the Communication ‘Paving the way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument’, which
provides a basis for developing the relevant instruments aimed at enhancing cross-border and regional/
transnational co-operation on the external borders of the Union.

At present, the relevant bodies of the Council are considering possible actions for the period 2004-2006
aimed at significantly improving co-ordination between the various financing instruments concerned, while
fulfilling existing commitments and obligations regarding the current programming period up to the end
of 2006. These actions should be based on the existing legislative and financial framework for cross-border
cooperation such as Interreg, PHARE-CBC, TACIS-CBC, CARDS and MEDA. For the period after 2006, the
reflection will continue on the different options that the Commission described in its Communication,
including the creation of a single New Neighbourhood Instrument.