WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Regional development funding.
C 280 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 The Commission has to date issued four publications describing key projects carried out with 2. Structural Fund support (2). Other booklets on certain Member States are currently being prepared; one on the United Kingdom is scheduled for the end of 1999. In addition, information concerning the most significant projects carried out in individual Member States (ásuccess storiesí) is available on the Inforegio website (http://www. inforegio. cec. eu. int). 3. Under the partnership approach, the Commission takes every possible step to ensure that full use is made of the resources available from the Structural Funds. Although Italyís administrative procedures are somewhat slow, the country has achieved undeniable progress in implementing its structural programmes in recent years. This effort to improve matters must, however, be sustained, particularly in view of the new programming period and the new management mechanisms, which hinge on a greater degree of subsidiarity. it must be acknowledged that It should be pointed out that, in terms of its implementation capacity, the Lazio region has achieved the average rate for Italian non-Objective 1 regions. (1) (2) The figures refer to the commitments and payments made to final recipients, expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the programmes approved under each objective. The publications concerned are: Job challenge: ten innovative projects tell their storiesí ISBN 92-828-4241-X; Regional success stories: profiles of 36 projects in Europeí ISBN 92-827-6539-3; Deutschlandreise ü Projekte der EU-Regionalforderungí ISBN 92-828-2680-5; Tour de France des rØgions ü 27 projets soutenus par les Fonds structurelsí ISBN 92-828-2678-3. (2000/C 280 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Regional development funding Is it true that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy recently rejected the Italian Governmentís 1. proposals concerning Objective 2? 2. If so, why? 3. Can the Commission state whether the new criteria for the utilisation of structural funds laid down at the Berlin summit, which are different from those in force during the period 1994-1999, are behind that rejection? 4. If so, which Member States would benefit from those new criteria, and which would be penalised? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 1. was found by the Commission to be not acceptable. The proposal was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 2. 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), under which the areas that satisfy the Communityí criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian authorities in line with the Communityí criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i. e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population). 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/13 The Regulation was adopted unanimously by the Member States and received the assent of the 3. European Parliament. As explained above, the Italian proposal was considered inadmissible not because of the new criteria as such but rather because it was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of the Regulation. 4. The criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation do not penalise any Member State. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 280 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/99 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services In the light of reports that the British Intelligence Services are intercepting all telecommunications to and from Ireland, will the Commission seek to establish what the implications of this action are for the political cohesion of the Union? Further, what are the implications for the right of commercial undertakings to engage freely in commu- nicating internationally and within the EU, and what are the implications for individual citizens engaged in personal or commercially sensitive communications? Can the Commission ask the British authorities if the reports are actually true and, if so, if the British are spying on all other Member States of the EU in a similar way? Could the Commission also state whether such activities are in violation of any EU law? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (27 January 2000) The Commission has no knowledge of the matters to which the Honourable Member refers. In any event, the Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned. The Commission nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests, and condemns any and all threats to the integrity of communications within or exchanged between institutions, commercial enterprises or by individual citizens engaged in communicating internationally and within the Union. (2000/C 280 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products Several bodies licensed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Resources to certify PDO products and to append the PDO identifying stamp on those products use the services of the respective Consorzi di tutela (organisations for the protection of individual products) in the capacity of outside bodies. Apparently, the equipment for marking the products (branding or other methods) to show that they have been certified to be PDO is not therefore in the possession of the body authorised to certify such