Sei sulla pagina 1di 2


2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/23

2. The Commission has made it clear to candidate countries that compliance with the acquis in the
matter of notified bodies is indispensable for enlargement, a position that is not contested. The PHARE
programme and, in particular PRAQ III, provide for technical assistance in this field. PRAQ III also
provides for evaluation of progress, as a tool for the effective channelling of assistance. This technical
assistance amounts to a transfer of European best practices, helping the beneficiary countries to
achieve levels of performance comparable to those found in the Community.

3. and 4. The safeguard procedure provided in Community product legislation only applies within the
European economic area (EEA), or in countries with which specific trade arrangements have provided
for its application. It is not applicable to candidate countries in the pre-enlargement period, unless a
specific agreement provides otherwise. The question of jurisdiction therefore does not arise.

5. Market surveillance in the Community is a responsibility of the Member States. Community law
requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with Community law, for
example as regards freedom to place compliant products on the market and the obligation to ensure
that non-compliant products are not placed on the market. However, in the run-up to their member-
ship, the Community will monitor progress by the candidates to apply the acquis through further
screening and sub-committee meetings.

6. Protocols to the Europe agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of products (PECAs),
currently under discussion with a number of candidate countries, would facilitate trade where it is
established that the candidate country has already transposed and effectively implemented the
requirements of the acquis on industrial products. This would require the candidate country to have
implemented relevant legislation, to have ensured that notified bodies were performing at Community
levels of competence, to have established effective market surveillance and to have established a
safeguard procedure comparable to that provided within the Community. In the envisaged PECA
procedure, compliance with the obligations of the safeguard procedure would fall under the jurisdic-
tion of the respective parties, subject to the oversight of the joint committee.

(2000/C 225 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1813/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Selection of areas for EU aid in Finland

The initial selections have been made in the Member States for the areas to receive aid under the EU’s
regional policy. In Finland the government is proposing precisely delimited areas for support under
Objective 2, including parts of the fastest-growing and most developed cities.

From the point of view of the less-developed areas surrounding these cities it seems strange that well-off,
developed areas are being selected to receive aid, while the surrounding areas which are suffering from an
exodus of population, the loss of traditional livelihoods and structural changes to industry are not able to
be included among the areas eligible for support.

If it is not possible for aid areas to include whole provinces, they should at least be based on whole
neighbourhoods. Now the government’s proposal is seriously neglecting the rural areas around centres of

What is the Commission doing to ensure that less-developed areas suffering serious problems can receive
EU aid instead of the Member States ‘cherry-picking’ in this way?
C 225 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

As provided in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the structural funds, the Commission decides the list of regions eligible for objective 2 on
the basis of a proposal from the Member State. The Commission examines the proposal for conformity
with the regulation. In particular, it ensures that the population ceiling fixed for the Member State is
respected and that the regions proposed fulfil the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Article 4.

These criteria cover the different categories of area eligible for support under objective 2, viz. areas
undergoing socio-economic change in the industry and service sectors, declining rural areas, urban areas in
difficulty and fisheries-dependent areas with serious problems. The Commission also verifies that where it
is objectively possible at least 50 % of the population covered by objective 2 is situated in areas covered by
the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 4, concerning socio-economic change in the industry and
services sectors and declining rural areas.

In the case of Finland, the Commission has decided the list of eligible areas, in principle, at its meeting of
26 October 1999. Some 27 % of the objective 2 list for Finland, in terms of population, were formally
proposed by the national authorities under rural criteria, with 11 % and 62 % for the urban and industrial
areas, respectively. In reality, the industrial areas also contain a significant rural territory which would
allow the national authorities to finance measures under the objective 2 programmes concerned in favour
of rural development.

The Commission is satisfied that list of areas eligible under objective 2 in Finland meet the criteria in the
regulation and that they therefore have genuine needs in accordance with aims of this objective.

(2000/C 225 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already
disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or
individuals, in connection with the ‘European against Cancer’ programme  Action plans 1987-1989,
1990-1994 and 1996-2000?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the evaluation and implementation reports on the three action
plans against cancer, details of which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s

Controls on the correct use of Community funds in the context of these action plans are carried out by
means of evaluation of the scientific and budgetary reports provided by contractors, and by audits carried
out in particular cases by the Commission.