WRITTEN QUESTION P-0450/00 by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional policy and the structural funds ‐ operational plan for the region of Sicily.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/77 The Commission has intervened in favour of this provision. The provision in question introduces a very serious derogation from the fundamental principle of the equality of the eleven official languages of the Union and constitutes a case of blatant discrimination against the other languages and the European citizens who speak them. The latter are thus deprived of the right to communicate, receive and impart information and claim their rights in their own languages in matters falling within the scope of the Alicante Office. One example will suffice: the official journal of the Office is published only in the five languages mentioned above. Bearing in mind that the European Union has eleven official languages and that the Commission which is the guardian of the Treaties has an obligation to respect all eleven languages and to conduct its business in them, will the Commission say: 1. Why has it decided to intervene in a procedure in which the Council is also intervening in favour of the contentious provisions? 2. How is this intervention compatible with its obligation to respect the Treaties and thus the eleven official languages of the Community, especially since the Commission had not included this or any similar provision limiting the working languages of the Office to the five above languages in its proposal on this matter? 3. Does the Commission intend to apply the same language arrangements to its own work or is it planning to propose to the Council that the official languages of the Community be reduced to the above five languages? (1) OJ L 11, 14. 1. 1994, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000) The Honourable Member raises questions concerning a case which is pending before the Court of First Instance. The Commission will therefore limit itself to commenting briefly on the questions, without entering into the detail of the matters to be discussed before the Court. It therefore replies as follows to the questions asked: 1. The Commissionís decision to intervene in support of the conclusions of the Council and the office for harmonization in the internal market (OHMI) was based on its view that the institutional importance of the questions raised in this case required it to take a position. 2. It is true that the language rØgime of the OHMI as decided by the Council did not figure in the Commissionís original proposal for a regulation setting up the Office. However, the Commission takes the view that the language rØgime finally adopted is lawful, bearing in mind the need to strike a balance between the principle of equal the Community trademark system, on the other. treatment on the one hand, and the efficiency of 3. The Commission has no plans to apply the language rØgime of the OHMI to its own work, or to reduce the number of official languages of the Community. (2000/C 374 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0450/00 by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 February 2000) Subject: Regional policy and the structural funds ü operational plan for the region of Sicily As the Commission has pointed out, the regional operational plan submitted by the Region of Sicily does not seem to respect the guiding criteria for the new Structural Funds. In particular, it appears to envisage an excessive number of intervention measures and there are substantial shortcomings in the implementing projects to back up the requested funding. In other words, the Plan submitted is too general and fragmented, which arouses various concerns about the added value of the numerous microprojects drawn up and the possible loss of Community co-financing if its content and structure are not changed in agreement with the Commission. C 374 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 In view of the above, can the Commission say: 1. whether these fears are justified; 2. what conditions the Region of Sicily has failed to comply with; 3. what changes should be made to the above-mentioned Plan; 4. whether there is real collaboration between Palermo and Brussels on the content of the Plan; 5. whether there is any real possibility that the Region of Sicily may lose the co-financing in the event of the plan not fulfilling the criteria established by the Structural Funds? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (17 March 2000) As part of the programming for 2000-2006, the Italian authorities included with the development plan for the Mezzogiorno a series of proposals for operational programmes, including those in Sicily. These documents are currently being studied by the Commission. With particular regard to the regional operational programme for Sicily, which was declared admissible, the Commission made certain comments during the negotiations with the Italian authorities. These points are currently being discussed with those authorities in order to arrive at the final version of the document which will be the subject of a Commission Decision. It should be stressed that assistance for 2000-2006 is prepared in full partnership with the national, central and regional authorities concerned. At this early stage in programming, it is not possible to talk of the under-utilisation of funds. (2000/C 374 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0451/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2000) Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from different tax arrangements within the EU Can the Council confirm that a working party of Council officials has encountered in a number of Member States sixty sets of tax arrangements which are deemed to have the effect of distorting competition? Is it true that the report identifies the Netherlands as the front runner in this respect, with nine schemes coming in for criticism? What are the nine? Is it true that no fiscal arrangements having the effect of distorting competition were found in Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (the large Member States)? What is the Councilís opinion of this official report and when will it present its own political appraisal? Reply (16/17 May 2000) 1. The report of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to which the Honourable Member refers and which was submitted to the Council (Ecofin) on 29 November 1999 can be consulted on the Councilís Internet site (ue. eu. int/newsroom, under ámiscellaneousí, 4901/1999)