Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on the Cohesion Fund
Date: 2005-04-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, interinstitutional relations (EU)

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/35

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on the Cohesion Fund

(2005/C 231/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund (COM(2004) 494
final — 2004/0166 (AVC);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 15 July 2004, to consult it on this subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 26 May 2004 to instruct its Commission for Territorial
Cohesion to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1164/ 94 which established the Cohesion Fund and which
was subsequently complemented by Regulations (EC) No. 1264/99 and (EC) 1265/99;

Having regard to the other proposals for regulations of the European Commission concerning the general
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund,
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund,
COM(2004) 492 final, 2004 /0163 (AVC) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),
COM(2004) 495 final — 2004/0167 (COD);

Having regard to its opinion on the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (CdR 120/2004
fin) (1);

Having regard to its Outlook report on Governance and simplification of the Structural Funds after 2006
CdR 389/2002 fin (2);

Having regard to its draft opinion, adopted on 4 February 2005 by the Commission for Territorial Cohe-
sion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Antonio Paiva, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Tomar (PT/EPP) (CdR 234/
2004 rev. 2);

adopted the following opinion at its 59th plenary session of 13-14 April 2005 (meeting of
13 April).

1. The Committee of the Regions views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.4
welcomes the fact that the cohesion fund will apply to
member States with GNP lying below 90 % of the Community
average. A political solution should be sought for Member
States that will no longer be eligible as a result of enlargement;

1.1
welcomes the framework proposal of
Commission for the regulations of structural
period 2007-2013;

the European
funds for the

1.2
is convinced that, taking into account the enlargement
of the Union to 25 Member States and subsequently to 27, the
Commission's financial proposal
to allocate 0.41 of Gross
National Income (increasable to 0.46 with the inclusion of aid
for rural development and fishing) and earmarking EUR 336.3
billion for financing the three Objectives (78 % Convergence
Objective; 18 % Regional Competitiveness and Employment
Objective and 4 % Territorial Cooperation)
is the minimum
compromise for future cohesion policy;

1.3
is pleased that the scope of assistance from the cohesion
fund has considered the support of projects that present envir-
onmental benefits, namely energy efficiency and renewable
energy and, in the transport sector outside the trans-European
networks, rail, river and sea transport,
intermodal transport
systems and their interoperability, management of road and air
traffic, clean urban transport and public transport;

(1) OJ C 318 of 22.12.2004, p. 1
(2) OJ 2003/C 256/01

1.5
is of the view that the Member States beneficiaries of
the Cohesion Fund should not be penalised with the suspension
the Cohesion Fund when in
of
accordance with Article 104 (6) of the Treaty the excessive
public deficit exists in a beneficiary Member State;

the financial assistance of

that

trusts

the European Commission will

1.6
clarify
whether the suspension, if it exists, refers only to new projects
to be approved after 1 January of the year following the deci-
sion;

is convinced that

1.7
the European Commission has to
analyse the advantages and disadvantages of considering the
same general regulations for both the ERDF and the ESF and
explanatory memorandum
for
presented does not clarify this opinion of the Commission's
proposal. The CoR considers that a cost-benefit analysis of this
change on Cohesion Fund regulations should be provided;

the Cohesion Fund. The

C 231/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

1.8
trusts that the European Commission has a reason to change from a project-by-project (Article 1
paragraph 3 of EC No. 1164/ 94 — regulation of current Cohesion Fund) analysis to a program analysis
(last paragraph of point 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum of document COM(2004) 492 final — regu-
lation for structural funds) of the proposals of the Member States receiving support from the Cohesion
Fund. This method is going to be completely different from the one that is being used now. The European
Commission should justify this change according to the results of an evaluation, which should be carried
out, for the current Cohesion Fund.

2. The Committee of the Regions' Recommendations

Recommendation 1

New recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Cohesion Fund must also take account of the social
aspects of sustainable development and must contribute
towards achieving social inclusion, in particular in relation
to accessibility and the removal of barriers for people with
disabilities to combat discrimination of disabled persons,
in accordance with Article 13 of the Treaty.

R e a son

The Structural Funds, notably the Cohesion Fund, is an essential tool for reducing and alleviating social
exclusion of vulnerable groups such as in removing barriers for disabled persons in all areas of life in par-
ticular by promoting and creating an accessible physical environment for disabled persons in relation to
information communication technologies, transport and the built environment.

Recommendation 2

Article 2 — point 1

Scope of assistance

Text proposed by the Commission

COR amendment

Trans-European transport networks, in particular priority
projects of European interest as identified by Decision No.
1692/96EC;

Trans-European transport networks, in particular priority
projects of European interest as identified by Decision No.
1692/96EC and their respective links namely ports and
airports.

R e a son

Especially Outermost Regions of the European Union need these links to reduce isolation from the Euro-
pean Continent and provide access to the Trans-European Network.

Recommendation 3

Article 3 — point 1

Rules on eligibility of expenditure

Text proposed by the Commission

COR amendment

The following expenditure shall be ineligible:
1) VAT;
2) interest on debt;
3) the purchase of land for an amount exceeding 10% of
the operation
expenditure

eligible

for

total
the
concerned;

The following expenditure shall be ineligible:
1) VAT;
2) interest on debt;
3) the purchase of land for an amount exceeding 10% of
the operation
expenditure

eligible

for

total
the
concerned;

4) housing;
5) decommissioning of nuclear power stations

4) housing;
5) decommissioning of nuclear power stations

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/37

R e a son

In the current Cohesion Fund, VAT is eligible and there is no reason for stricter rules than the existing
ones.

Recommendation 4

Article 4

Conditions applying to access to Fund assistance

Text proposed by the Commission

COR amendment

Assistance from the Cohesion Fund shall be condi-

1.
tional on the following rules.

Assistance from the Cohesion Fund shall be condi-

1.
tional on the following rules.

2.

If the Council:

a) has established in accordance with Article 104(6) EC
that excessive government deficit exists in a beneficiary
Member State, and

2.

a)

If the Council:

established in accordance with Article 104(6) EC that
excessive government deficit exists in a beneficiary
Member State,

b) has decided in accordance with Article 104(8) EC that
the Member State concerned, in response to a Council
Recommendation issued under Article 104(7) EC has
not taken effective action or that the action taken has
proven to be inadequate,

b) has decided in accordance with Article 104 (8) EC that
the Member State concerned, in response to a Council
Recommendation issued under Article 104(7) EC has
not taken effective action or that the action taken has
proven to be inadequate,

it decides to suspend either the totality of part of the
financial assistance from the Fund for the Member State
concerned with effect from 1 January of the year following
the decision. The suspension concerns the commitments.

it decides to suspend either the totality of part of the finan-
the Member State
cial assistance from the Fund for
concerned with effect from 1 January of the year following
the decision. The suspension concerns the commitments.

The Council decides to lift the suspension of the
3.
financial assistance from the Fund if it establishes that the
Member State concerned has taken the necessary correc-
tive action. The Commission proceeds to the re-budgetisa-
tion of the commitments suspended.

The Council decides to lift the suspension of the
3.
financial assistance from the Fund if it establishes that the
Member State concerned has taken the necessary corrective
action. The Commission proceeds to the re-budgetisation
of the commitments suspended.

The Council takes the decisions referred to in para-
4.
graphs 2 and 3 on a qualified majority on a proposal from
the Commission.

The Council takes the decisions referred to in para-
4.
graphs 2 and 3 on a qualified majority on a proposal from
the Commission.

The Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion
Fund shall be Member States whose per capita Gross
Income (GNI) measured in purchasing power
National
parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures
for the last three years available on (...), is less than 90% of
the Community average.

R e a son

Article 4 should be replaced by a new paragraph, which should list the member States eligible to Cohesion
Fund.

If Article 4 remains as the European Commission proposes, the Cohesion Fund beneficiary Member State
will be penalised twice. One of the penalisations is similar to the one applied to any other EU Member
State with an excessive public deficit. The other penalisation will be the suspension of the Cohesion Fund
for the Member State concerned.

Although it is understandable that the Cohesion Fund beneficiary States must meet the conditions of
economic convergence, the suspension of the Cohesion Fund will bring greater difficulties to a Member
State that already has a GNP below the Community average.

C 231/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Furthermore, it is not clear whether the suspension applies to new projects approved after 1 January of the
year following the decision and what happens to the ones that have been approved before that date.

Brussels, 13 April 2005.

The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council on market access to port services

White Paper on the review of Regulation 4056/86, applying the EC competition rules to maritime
transport

and the

(2005/C 231/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market
access to port services (COM(2004) 654 final; 2004/0240 (COD)) and the White Paper on the review of
Regulation 4056/86 applying the EC competition rules to maritime transport (COM(2004) 675 final);

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 2 December 2004, to consult it on this subject, under the
first paragraph of Article 265 and Article 80 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its president of 3 November 2004 to instruct its Commission for Terri-
torial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on Reinforcing quality service in sea ports: A key for European transport and the Proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market access to port services (COM(2001) 35 final) and
the Amended Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market access to
port services (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty (COM(2002) 101
final));

Having regard to its opinion of 20 September 2001 on the Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council on Reinforcing quality service in sea ports: A key for European trans-
port (CdR 161/2001 fin) (1);

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 September 2001 on
the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market access to port
services (CES 1495/2001);

Having regard to the Report of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States of 2 May 2002 on the Proposal
for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services;

(1) OJ C 19 of 22.1.2002, p. 3