title: Opinion of Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)'

eurovoc_concepts:
EU initiative
Structural Funds
cross-border cooperation
deprived urban area
equal treatment
rural development

formats: html pdf print

text: C 156/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 Opinion of Committee of the Regions on: — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)’, — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes (CIPs) for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’, and — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ (2000/C 156/04) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down the guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European co-operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ COM(1999) 479 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community Initiative for rural development (Leader+)’ COM(1999) 475 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’ COM(1999) 476 final; having regard to the Commission’s decision of 25 October 1999 to consult the Committee on this subject, in accordance with Article 265c (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border and Inter-Regional Cooperation; having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism (Commission 5) (rapporteur: Mrs Sexton, Member of Longford County Council (IRL/ELDR); having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (Commission 2) (rapporteur: Mr Correia, President of Tavira Municipal Council, (P/EPP); having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 219/99 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999 (rapporteur: Mrs Storm Rasmussen, Mayor of the County of Copenhagen DK/PES), at its 32nd plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2000 (meeting of 17 February) adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction 1. 1. In the light of the Commission’s Communication on the Community initiatives 2000-2006 (Commission work programme No 97/020) and the Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European co- operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg) (COM(1999) 479 final) the Committee of the Regions is drawing up an own-initiative opinion on the subject, as its contribution to the debate on the Interreg, Leader+ and Equal Community initiatives during the next Structural Fund period. The opinion does not cover the Urban initiative. The Committee calls on the Commission and the 1. 2. Member States’ representatives on the management com- mittees in charge of the individual Community initiatives to 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/19 ensure that regional and local interests are taken into account, as this opinion recommends. 2. General comments on the Community initiatives 2. 1. The Community initiatives are of key importance and interest to EU regional and local authorities, which often have the responsibility of managing programmes or implementing projects. The Committee therefore welcomes the increased emphasis on regional and local authority involvement in the Community initiatives under the new Structural Funds period. 2. 2. Bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, the Com- mittee would stress that both the framing and execution of plans and programmes primarily fall within the local and regional authorities’ remit. Basically the Committee agrees with the proposed 2. 3. concentration of support for Community initiatives, which are to be reduced from the current thirteen to four. The principle of continuity and current development trends are largely respected in the thrust of these initiatives. Interreg cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation intended to encourage harmoni- ous and balanced development in Europe; Leader+ development of rural areas; Equal Transnational cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimi- nation and inequalities in connection with the labour market, and Urban economic and social renewal in urban areas with acute problems. 2. 4. One welcome simplification is that each Community initiative is to be financed by only one of the Structural Funds. Interreg and Urban are financed under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Leader+ under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Equal under the European Social Fund (ESF). Hence the scope of each Community initiative will also include measures covered by the other Funds. For instance, Interreg, under the ERDF, should also be able to support activities that normally belong under the ESF or EAGGF. In this way, action under each Community initiative will be more closely tailored to the problems to be tackled and to the needs of the authorities deploying the resources. That will reduce the administrative burden but also require a special effort on the part of the authorities responsible for the Structural Funds. 2. 5. The Community initiatives supplement the other Struc- tural Fund initiatives under the programmes for objectives 1, 2 and 3 regions. The Community initiative programmes must therefore be coordinated with the Member States’ programming documents and the operational programmes. The Committee is pleased to note that one of the key 2. 6. principles underpinning the new Community initiatives is a bottom-up approach, combined with regional and local responsibility and involvement (the partnership principle). The vital role played by regional and local authorities in connection implementation and assessment of pro- with the framing, grammes needs to be stressed. Since these authorities are closest to grassroots level, they are best placed to know how to tackle challenges. In this connection, the Committee would reiterate the need, when the Member State sets the programme in motion, for provision to be made for close partnership with bodies and associations representing the local and regional authorities which implement the programme. 2. 7. Administrative and assessment arrangements should be as simple and informal as possible, and approval procedures should be speeded up; accordingly, the administrative machin- ery should be streamlined. 2. 8. The purpose of the Community initiatives is to support initiatives of particular Community interest. Consequently Community initiative-related funding should not depend on whether or not the project concerned is to be carried out in an area designated under a Community objective. On the other hand, the task of structural policy is to help alleviate income discrepancies between the regions; the Community therefore designates eligible areas and regional programmes. In the Committee’s view, the partners in cooperation footing under Community 2. 9. must participate on an equal initiatives. 2. 10. On 1 July 1999 the Council decided that EUR 10,4 billion (in 1999 prices) should be earmarked for Community initiatives; to include EUR 4 875 million for Interreg, EUR 700 million for Urban, EUR 2 020 million for Leader+ and EUR 2 847 million for Equal. 2. 11. The Committee notes that support for the Com- munity initiatives is to be scaled down over the forthcoming period 2000-2006. Interreg 3. Comments on Interreg The purpose of the new Interreg initiative is to promote 3. 1. cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation so as to encourage balanced development in Europe. C 156/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 3. 2. The Committee is happy to observe that the proposals for Interreg III recognise the value of the regional and local authorities’ role. 3. 3. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this initiat- ive is founded on the experiences of the previous Interreg programmes; its inclusion of experiences from the innovative actions provided for in ERDF Article 10 is also welcomed. 3. 4. The Interreg initiative has three strands: Strand A Strand B Strand C Cross-border cooperation aiming to promote integrated regional development between bor- der regions, including external and maritime borders (Interreg III A); Transnational cooperation with a view to contributing to harmonious and sustainable development across large groups of European regions — macroregions (Interreg III B); Interregional cooperation to foster exchanges of experiences within regional development and cohesion policies and techniques, as well as promoting the networking within areas of regional policy (Interreg III C). 3. 5. In the Committee’s view, it is important that the A, B and C programmes should not overlap but be mutually complementary so as to facilitate a broad spectrum of partnership formulae and relations. As a result authorities which have played only a limited part to date in Interregional cooperation should have the possibility of participating along with more experienced regions and municipalities in Interreg cooperation. 3. 6. The Committee feels that the management of Interreg resources needs to be simplified substantially by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties concerned and by creating the right balance between simplification and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds. Hence the division of responsibility between the vertical and horizontal partnership must be clarified, redtape cut and monitoring, assessment and control tightened so as to place financial management on a sounder footing. 3. 7. The Commission attaches importance to establishing genuinely cross-border and transnational activities and admin- istrative units. Characteristic features of genuine cross-border cooperation include common decisionmaking procedures encompassing programme development, project selection and financing, as well as common administrative structures. 3. 8. The Committee is pleased to note that the Commission proposes to grant a ‘global grant’ directly to each Interreg III programme A and B region. Programmes are most effective when the bottom-up principle, is observed, i. e. when regional and local partners themselves take the initiative and projects are selected jointly by the regional, local and social partners. Hence joint decisions are taken on which activities are key the programme and should therefore be components of supported. The Committee welcomes the possibility of funding up 3. 9. to 100 % of the costs of establishing and developing joint programming, monitoring and programme management structures (technical assistance). 3. 10. Public sector structures and the definition of public tasks and resources differ from Member State to Member State. The Committee recommends that consideration be given — in the light of experiences from the current Interreg programmes and heeding the existing rules on competition — to allowing private funding in certain forms to co-finance EU support and placing such funding on an equal footing with public sector co-financing. Funders could include trade unions, NGOs or associations supporting more general aims. Co-financing should therefore be assessed on the basis of the purpose rather than the source of funding. 3. 11. The Committee observes that the Commission’s list of border areas eligible under Interreg II A and the geographical delimitation of Interreg II B macro-regions has been adjusted in the new Interreg guidelines. The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal 3. 12. to set up an observatory for cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation, provided that funding of Interreg programmes does not suffer as a result. A system for coordinat- ing, developing and disseminating experiences from Interre- gional cooperation is much needed. 4. Strand A — Cross-border cooperation (Interreg III A) 4. 1. Many of Europe’s national frontiers were fixed in the course of this century. It takes a long time for the discord and distrust generated by a change of border to give way to peaceful co-existence and fruitful cooperation. In particular, the regions adjoining the central and eastern European countries are all too aware that a border tends to divide two countries instead of serving as a meetingpoint. It is therefore most important to continue to prioritise support for cooper- ation across the EU’s external frontiers, including maritime frontiers. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/21 4. 2. Cross-border cooperation serves a valuable purpose in improving the populations’ mutual historical, cultural and political understanding and attempting to eliminate linguistic, cultural, political, administrative and other obstacles to cross- border cooperation. 4. 3. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the existing Interreg II A areas serve as basis for framing future programmes for cross-border cooperation. The Committee of the Regions is pleased to note that the guidelines also focus on the EU’s external borders. Interreg III A is a very important programme for levelling out regional differences in living standards, in particular along the long border between the EU and Russia. The Interreg III A programme helps the Baltic states which have applied for membership to embrace the EU’s development policy. 4. 4. Island or maritime regions depend on cross-sea com- munications and contacts. Maritime communication routes must be improved and developed, to give greater coherence to the Single Market’s cross-border labour market, industry and commerce, educational sector and cultural life. It is therefore advisable to introduce more flexible arrangements to enable islands to befit from Strand A, particularly for the most remote regions which are faced with the ending of the Community initiative Regis. 4. 5. The Committee is therefore pleased to see that some maritime borders continue to be under Interreg III A. The fact that existing viable, natural maritime partner-regions will continue to be eligible for aid will particularly benefit island communities and isolated and peripheral regions. 4. 6. There are a large number of examples of genuine cross-border Interreg administrative structures, including the ‘Euroregions’. Though the Euroregions are founded on decentralised, transnational political and administrative struc- tures, the Committee is opposed to the Euroregion concept being used as a criterion for eligibility to manage Interreg III A programmes and funds: it should however represent added value. The Commission proposes to frame one programme 4. 7. only per national border, with specific sub-programmes for smaller cross-border cooperation zones. In the Committee’s view, the Interreg III A regions in particular proceed on the basis of their own political priorities, which cannot be encapsulated in one central programme per national border. Further, is inconsistent with the bottom up principle to distance the administrative and financial decisionmaking process from the horizontal partnership between regional, local and social players in cross-border regions. The Committee therefore urges that all programmes concerning cooperation over the same national border should remain autonomous. it 4. 8. The Committee welcomes the broad range of cooper- ation zones proposed by the Commission for purposes of implementing cross-border development strategies. The cross- border programmes reflect the particular challenges facing each individual border region. It is therefore important for the list of spheres of cooperation to form a broad framework into which, for instance, local and regional cooperation in the media sphere could be incorporated. 4. 9. The Committee advocates greater flexibility in the inter-pro- Interreg programmes so as to improve internal gramme cooperation at four levels: programming, policymak- ing and administration, and the project itself. It should be possible for two or more programmes to pursue common goals, coordinate activities and support common projects. Where appropriate, flexibility should also make it possible for Interreg III A programmes to encompass regions in more than two countries, as in the case of the Belgium-France- Luxembourg border region. 4. 10. The Committee endorses the existing rule under which up to 20 % of cross-border programme funding can be allocated to support projects and activities in areas adjoining border regions. One condition for such aid is that the entire border area derives benefit from the funding, (e. g. greater mobility). 5. Strand B — Transnational cooperation (Interreg III B) One of the differences between strand B and strand A 5. 1. cooperation is the larger geographical area and number of partners (macro-regions). Action covers cooperation on spatial planning and regional development. Strand B allows for cooperation with adjoining regions in non-EU countries on projects aiming to develop and reinforce common strategies for the macro-regions. The range of activities eligible under Interreg III B 5. 2. should be broader than under the current Interreg II C programme. In addition to research and studies, it should be possible for projects with more visible impact, including smallscale (infrastructure) investments and pilot projects, to receive support. It will then be easier to evaluate the activities and their value. The spatial planning concept should also be extended so as to allow support for actual regional and business development (e. g. research and technological development, promotion of employment and education and training). For Interreg to make a positive contribution to the 5. 3. EU’s future spatial development policy, the Committee feels that the initiative’s operational programmes should, where C 156/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 possible, be consistent with the objectives of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Interreg III B and the ESDP should be mutually complementary so that the latter’s recommendations regarding a more balanced polycentric territorial area, sustainable development, a more balanced transport infrastructure and respect for the environment and cultural heritage are translated into practical projects. 5. 4. In the Committee’s view, the strand B macro-regions should extend to regions that can make a positive contribution to sustainable, harmonious and balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the macro-region should be able to participate under Interreg III B. The existing Interreg II C programme appears to be 5. 5. a nationally-dominated programme, from which regional authorities can also benefit. However, it is not rooted in the regional and local authorities’ development priorities for the geographical areas covered by the programme. Hence the wisdom of transposing existing Interreg II C programming and management structures to the new Interreg III B programmes should be carefully considered. The Committee believes that the Interreg III B cooper- 5. 6. ation areas should be defined with the full agreement of the regions and the regional groupings concerned, following an assessment of the relevance of the Interreg II C areas. This assessment must take account of the slowness in implementing operational programmes in certain Interreg II C. 6. Strand C — Interregional cooperation (Interreg III C) 6. 1. Interreg III C is to address cooperation between regions throughout Europe. Some regional and local authorities lack the geographical characteristics, experience, capacity or size to participate in strand A or B cross-border or transnational cooperation. The Committee therefore welcomes the new initiative and confirms that funding to promote the establish- ment of networks and smaller scale Interregional schemes for exchanging experiences can be put to good use. to draw up programmes that can span the entire EU and cover a broader range of subjects than in the case of strand B programmes. Strand C should be designed with the aim of ensuring 6. 3. that: — Interregional cooperation has its own qualitative content within Interreg III; — Interregional cooperation complements the other strands as a horizontal instrument for Community-wide dialogue and exchange of experiences on the involvement of local and regional authorities in implementing Community policies; — promotion of Interregional cooperation is implemented by an independent and decentralised programme adminis- tration in Europe. 6. 4. The Interreg III C programmes must have common geographical, thematic or other characteristics. In the Com- mittee’s opinion, strand C should be more innovative and specific in emphasis and support partnership models which are not eligible for support under strands A or B. 6. 5. Looking ahead to the enlargement of the EU, a number of geographical programmes focusing exclusively on territorial and local authorities could be introduced; these programmes, combined with Phare, Tacis and MEDA resources, would be anchored in common political priorities for development of the area concerned. This common network should be able to take decisions on support for projects involving partners from both EU and non-EU countries so as to ensure the initiatives’ relevance to the regional and local authorities’ actual needs and the regions’ priorities. 6. 6. The Committee is pleased to see that local authorities in less-favoured regions, islands and isolated and peripheral regions in particular will be able to participate under strand C. 7. Coordination with aid to non-EU countries The Committee does not agree with the idea that the 6. 2. strand B administrative units should draw up and manage strand C programmes. The strand B programmes are based on geographical macro-regions and relate to spatial planning and regional development. The strand C transnational programmes should be viewed from other angles, and the strand B administrative units intrinsically lack the relevant prerequisites Simplified, coherent procedures are needed in order to 7. 1. reinforce cooperation with the central and eastern European countries and the Mediterranean region and to integrate these countries into EU policies. The Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes as well as EU instruments to support non-Phare Balkan countries, therefore need to be better coordinated with Interreg III. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/23 Interregional cooperation is particularly necessary in 7. 2. the run-up to enlargement of the EU. Cooperation and exchanges of experiences make a key contribution in preparing the applicant countries for membership — and hence to European integration and cohesion. Coordination of aid raises a number of problems: Under the new guidelines, Phare CBC (cross-border 7. 3. cooperation) can only co-finance strand A whereas strand B can be co-financed by the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) or Mainstream Phare. However, strand B projects are not large enough to qualify for them. (ISPA is restricted to aiding large projects over EUR 5 million in the transport and environment sectors, while Mainstream Phare only supports projects over EUR 2 million). 7. 4. The programmes’ procedures and budgets are not compatible. The Phare, ISPA and Tacis budgets operate on a yearly basis whereas Interreg budgets cover several years. Consequently the projects have to be executed within different time frames. 7. 5. The objectives and scope of the programmes differ. Interreg III B focuses on spatial planning while, for instance, the Phare programme concentrates on preparing the applicant countries for EU membership and Tacis facilitates transition in the former Soviet Union countries. The programmes’ different guidelines mean that several separate applications have to be made for the same project. Concurrently the amount of time it takes to approve an application under the respective programmes differs, thereby delaying projects unnecessarily. 7. 6. The Committee proposes that funds be earmarked for co-financing of Interreg III projects in the Phare, Tacis and MEDA budgets, to which the Interreg transnational manage- ment committees can address eligible projects. the overall appropriation earmarked for Community initiatives (EUR 4 875 million for the period 2000-2006). 8. 2. In connection with the adoption of Agenda 2000, the heads of state and government stressed that cross-border activities should be prioritised, in the run-up to EU enlarge- ment. 8. 3. The Committee also feels that it needs to be remem- bered that Interreg II C has only been allocated funding for 1997-1999 under the current Structural Funds period. Hence, in the light of the positive impact made by Interreg II C, the relative priority of transnational activities needs to be upgraded. 8. 4. The Committee therefore advocates a reasonable break- down of appropriations for Interreg III A and B which retains the present Interreg II A level for cross-border activities while at the same time in relative terms, taking account of the fact that Interreg II C transnational activities have only been allocated funding for half the current Structural Fund period. As a result a smaller share should be allocated for the new Interreg III C initiatives. 8. 5. The Committee therefore advocates a breakdown of appropriations for the Interreg III budget lines that reflects the breakdown decided by the heads of state and government in relation to Agenda 2000 and prioritises cross-border activities, especially with a view to enlargement. 8. 6. In order to prevent parts of the Interreg III B transna- tional areas contained with one country being underfunded in comparison with their neighbours, thereby undermining the expected synergies, the Committee of the Regions suggests that the European Commission ask Member States to comply with a principle for the distribution of their ERDF package which ensures internal solidarity within areas and real conti- nuity with Interreg II C. 7. 7. The Committee observes that the Commission paves the way, in the Interreg guidelines, for closer coordination between Interreg and aid to the EU’s neighbours in central and eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean region. 9. Recommendations for Interreg III The Committee calls for: 8. Financing 8. 1. The Committee welcomes the higher priority given to the Interreg initiative and the allocation to Interreg III of half (1) the local and regional authorities’ role in programming, implementation, selection and assessment to be stepped up in full application of the subsidiarity principle; (2) procedures to be streamlined significantly by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties con- cerned and creating the right balance between simplifi- cation and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds; C 156/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 (3) programmes to be drawn up in line with the partnership principle, with programming, financial and administrative decisions taken by the regional, local and social partners; (14) rejection of the idea that strand B transnational adminis- trative units are to frame and manage strand C pro- grammes; (4) the Interreg A, B and C programmes to be mutually complementary, allowing authorities which have only played a limited part to date in inter-regional cooperation to participate along with more experienced regions in Interreg action; (5) Interreg III programmes to be structured with sufficient flexibility to allow cooperation to span programming, policymaking and administration as well as the project levels; (6) Interreg III resources to be deployed flexibly and be accessible to regions which can make a positive contri- bution to harmonious, balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the Interreg area should be eligible to participate in Interreg III programmes; (7) uniform grants to be made to all assisted projects and partners, regardless of whether the partners are in an area designated as eligible for objective-related aid; (8) private sector funding to support general purposes to be placed on an equal footing with public sector financing; (9) the Euroregion concept not to serve as criterion for eligibility to act as programming and management body for Interreg III A programmes; (10) the introduction of more Interreg III A programmes across national borders; there are already several such programmes for the present period; (11) the list of areas of action under Interreg III A to serve as a broad framework allowing for cooperation within the relevant spheres; (12) the activities eligible for Interreg III B funding to be extended to cover e. g. smallscale (infrastructure) invest- ments and pilot projects; (13) careful consideration be given to the wisdom of transpos- ing the existing Interreg II C programming and adminis- trative structures to the new Interreg III B programmes; (15) Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes to be coordinated more effectively with the Interreg III programme, and (16) Interreg III A and B funding to be reasonably apportioned so as to retain cross-border activities while upgrading the relative priority of transnational activities and also allocating an adequate share to initiatives under the new Interreg III C. Equal 10. Comments on Equal 10. 1. The twin goals of optimum employment and social cohesion are major challenges for the European Union. Recognition of the role the Union has to play in combating social exclusion is affirmed in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Treaty explicitly refers to combating exclusion and discrimi- nation. Article 137 provides for ‘measures designed to encourage co-operation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences to combat social exclusion’. There are not only moral and ethical reasons for 10. 2. combating unemployment and social exclusion, but also economic reasons. The pace of modernisation and develop- ment of new technologies has forced a rapid re-appraisal of skills needs across the Union. For those who have access to training and education there are boundless opportunities to take advantage of the developing information society. How- ever, for those members of the labour force who are in low skilled jobs, or even worse, those who are placed outside the labour force, the divide between skilled and unskilled is only accentuated. By working towards opening up the labour market to all, and particularly the most disadvantaged, the Union can release a potential of human resource that might otherwise remain hidden and unused. It is not uncommon when employers are experiencing skills shortages to recruit employees from abroad rather than provide training and education to members of their own labour force who are in low skilled jobs or people from the ranks of the unemployed. 10. 3. The formulation of the European Employment Strat- egy and National Action Plans has prompted the reform of the In terms of objectives and European Social Fund (ESF). priorities, the future shape of the European Social Fund will be guided by the European Employment Strategy. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/25 the During programming 10. 4. period 1994-1999 important parts of the ESF activities are taking place within industrial two Community Initiatives: Adapt (adoption of change) and Employment (re-integration of unemployed target groups into the labour market). The latter is sub-divided into four strands: NOW, Horizon, Youthstart and Integra. 10. 5. These two Community Initiatives are important Com- munity instruments for the promotion of changes in policy areas related to employment and the labour market. Both Adapt and Employment have played important roles in setting the stage for future action in the area of innovation and innovative ways of delivering preventative and active measures. By transferring mainstreaming good practices and experiences to other organisations, programmes and projects across the Member States they have provided a basis for the spread of labour market policies. Also, through their transnational partnerships, they have accelerated the learning process. 10. 6. The newly devised Equal Initiative will build on the experiences and successes of Adapt and Employment. It is envisaged that the considerable potential of transnational co- operation, both between individual projects and between project managers and political decision-makers, will be further developed and the transfer of good practice will feed back into the European Employment Strategy. 10. 7. The Commission has correctly acknowledged that lessons can be learned from Adapt and Employment. The expertise that has been garnered must be built on and this is particularly the case in relation to the project promoters and those involved in managing the Initiatives. The value-added created in the final years of the current Community Initiatives must be retained and furthered. 11. Project Profile and Additionality 11. 1. Project Profile 11. 1. 1. The Commission’s proposal pertaining to the avoid- ance of dissipation of financial resources across too many small projects represents a change of direction. In contrast to the present programming period, the Commission’s view is that the number of projects in receipt of funding should be reduced, with the result that the successful projects would tend to be bigger in scale. The issue of whether or not it is viable for ‘small’ projects to develop transnational elements is most important. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that projects should not be judged or evaluated on the basis of size. It is often the case that small projects possess huge potential in terms of devising methods and transfer of best practice. It may be somewhat easier to demonstrate methods of best practice emanating from projects that are smaller in scale than large unwieldy projects. 11. 1. 2. The Commission may fear that the administrative burden placed on organisations, and indeed the Commission, participating in small-scale projects would not lead to a significant multiplier effect. However, the Committee of the Regions believes that if the administration of Equal was to be efficient and simplistic, then the rate of return would be higher and would prove to be a worthwhile exercise for all. 11. 2. Additionality The issue of additionality must also be addressed in 11. 2. 1. the new Equal Initiative. It has been the experience of Adapt and Employment that partners often struggle to raise the co- financing funds. In particular, this has been a problem for local and regional authorities that sign up to large transnational projects. By concentrating funding under the Equal Initiative on projects that are large in scale, some local and regional authorities may be excluded from participating in Equal projects by virtue of the fact that they cannot raise the is re-enforced that necessary co-finance. Thus the point ‘smaller’ type projects may have an important role to play in the Equal Initiative, as co-finance may be realisable for projects that have smaller budgets. 12. Measures 12. 1. measures to be launched under three main strands. It is envisaged that Equal will provide support for i) Strand A: transnational, integrated projects; ii) Strand B: national networking and dissemination; iii) Strand C: policy development. 12. 2. Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects 12. 2. 1. It is intended that projects under Strand A would combat discrimination and inequalities in relation to the labour market. Further to calls for proposals, projects would be selected and implemented on the basis of three criteria. These are: a) innovation — to be benchmarked against previous Com- munity Initiative experience; b) empowerment — the direct involvement of those most directly concerned with the fight against labour market discrimination and inequalities; c) integrated approach — successful projects should integrate a range of actions. 12. 2. 2. Under Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects, the Commission has recommended that there should be three project phases taking projects from a preparatory phase to an operational phase and finally an evaluation and dissemination phase. C 156/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 12. 2. 3. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Commission has recommended that the European Social Fund will be the only Structural Fund to finance these integrated project, as this will lead to greater simplification. 12. 2. 4. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is most important that the terms innovation, empowerment and integrated approach be clearly defined from the outset of the Initiative. Once these terms are clearly defined in the context of Equal much of the confusion that was apparent with regard to Adapt and Employment should be avoided. 12. 3. Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination 12. 3. 1. It is envisaged by the Commission that Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination, would provide focus for a limited number of thematic areas to be funded by Equal in each Member State. The Committee of the Regions believes that local and regional interests should have an input into the decision making process with the Member State and the Commission in deciding upon relevant thematic areas. The Commission also recommends that each Member State pro- pose suitable mechanisms at national level for the networking of projects and the dissemination of good practice. In the Committee of the Regions view, local and regional interests should be actively involved in the establishment of the aforementioned mechanisms. 12. 4. Strand C: Policy Development 12. 4. 1. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Commission that Strand C: Policy Development should involve the Commission and Member States working together to create the link between good practice emerging from projects and policy development in thematic areas agreed upon for Equal. The Committee of the Regions is particularly supportive of attempts to develop mechanisms for the benchmarking and dissemination of results. 13. Implementation of Equal 13. 1. In implementing Equal the Commission recommends that each Member State should prepare a national programme according to the themes agreed, in relation to the European Employment Strategy, by a co-ordination structure. Once these programmes are agreed, the Member States will be responsible for launching regular calls for projects and establishing national monitoring committees to oversee the implemen- tation of the Initiative. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is at Member State level that the local and regional authorities can play a significant role in shaping the success of Equal. The Committee believes that regional and local interests should be represented on the National Monitoring Committees where they can bring their own local and regional experience to bear on the process. 14. Targeting Measures The Committee of the Regions is concerned that the 14. 1. Commission in setting out its initial position with regard to Equal has indicated that, unlike the present round of Com- munity Initiatives, there will be no ring fencing of funds for certain sectors of society. All organisations involved in combating marginalisation will be left to compete against each other for funding under the Equal Initiative. For example, those sections of society fighting against discrimination on the grounds of disability may have to compete against those attempting to progress equal opportunities for women in the work place. Whether this will result in the selection of the best and most deserving projects is questionable. The Committee of the Regions would encourage the Commission to consider the introduction of measures under the Equal Initiative that would specifically target the various marginalised sections of society. 15. General Remarks and Recommendations 15. 1. The Committee of the Regions recommends that a number of points be borne in mind when drafting the guidelines for Equal. (1) Equal, the newly proposed human resource Community Initiative, is designed to consolidate the achievements of the current Adapt and Employment initiatives. There is the to incorporate new programmes and need, however, measures into a new context, the European that of Employment Strategy. Equal should be shaped into an instrument that will aid community, local, regional and national agencies in their fight against social exclusion in the work place and beyond. (2) The administrative burden of submitting applications for funding should be kept as light as possible. It is often the case that the spectre of an overly bureaucratic process is offputting for potential applicants. (3) Clear definitions should be provided, where possible. The terms innovation, transnationality and mainstreaming need to be clearly defined in the context of Equal. (4) Monitoring activities will have to be developed which will allow for a comparison of project results and degrees of success. (5) It is of paramount importance that effective mainstreaming of successful Equal projects, at national, regional and local level, can only be achieved if a dissemination strategy is developed during the project cycle and not deferred to the very end of it. Leader+ 16. Comments on Leader+ The major innovation of the Leader+ Community 16. 1. initiative (I and II) was the approach adopted, which can be summarised as follows: 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/27 — integrated action — nearly all aspects of intervention — encouragement and technical support for develop- ment; The Committee therefore proposes that passages to this effect be deleted in the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States. This concerns the second half of the last sentence in point 9 and the whole of the last sentence in point 10. — training at various levels; — establishment/consolidation/modernisation of busi- ness units; 16. 3. Moreover, reference is made to the specificity and originality of the development strategy expected of each Local Action Plan in relation to the operations of mainstream programmes. — development of the use of local raw materials by means of small-scale processing; However, these very programmes are themselves hallmarked by, amongst other things, a sectoral or target group approach. — promotion and marketing of local products and ser- vices; — consolidation and diversification of rural tourism; — preservation and development of natural resources and cultural heritage. — intervention promoting integration — projects and activi- ties developed under the various aspects of the programme are organised into a single, coherent plan of action and do not merely comprise a series of separate projects; — local territorial approach — devised and implemented in line with the resources, potential and expectations of the area concerned; — a bottom-up approach — resulting from efforts to involve local bodies and population in the local development process; — decentralised management — under the responsibility of Local Action Groups who are granted considerable leeway in implementing the process with the flexibility required. 16. 2. The Commission’s document on Leader+ follows the guidelines of the previous programmes. However, a new feature is added, requiring the strategy of local action plans to be linked with one out of a series of specified themes. In the Committee’s view, action must focus on targeted problem areas. The subjects and target groups indicated by the Com- mission are appropriate for inclusion in an integrated develop- ment strategy. However, the Committee feels that the local action group should be able to choose more than just one theme or target group; it therefore urges the Member States to take advantage of the opportunity to amplify the list of possible themes and target groups. 16. 4. The real innovation introduced by the Leader+ pro- gramme is the approach which it has facilitated and encour- aged; it is precisely this advance in methodology which should be preserved and consolidated. 16. 5. Here we feel it important to mention that an action plan for the integrated development of a rural area cannot be comprised of innovative actions above. A plan of this type has to include a large number of initiatives and projects which provide a response to local problems and expectations, which have a local impact and which can consequently help to enhance local development dynamics. What is innovative is the plan as a whole; some non-innovative action can be necessary in order to secure viability, coherence and consist- ency in the overall process. 16. 6. One last point should be noted: the Leader+ approach requires there to be a Local Development Association respon- sible a) for devising and carrying out a Local Action Plan and, in parallel, b) for actively encouraging, mobilising and involving local people and organisations. Without a local dynamic and without encouraging the creation of a local development culture, Leader+ will not work. Thus it is vital that Leader+ continues to include a strong element of encouragement and technical support for develop- ment, allowing a wide range of activities and initiatives to be funded — including the establishment and operation of networks for stimulating development (each with its own nucleus, equipment and human resources), the publication of information and incentive instruments for the territory, and the organisation of events and festivals. The possibility of aiding the acquisition of knowhow and other technical assistance should — possibly on a lesser scale — also apply to rural areas where existing Leader+ groups are renewed. First, it must be recognised that the main point about Leader+ has always been that it can be applied in principle in all rural areas in the fifteen EU Member States and that this may not be thwarted by the guidelines governing the drawing up of plans. 16. 7. The Leader + programme is to place special emphasis on actions which favour an integrated approach, creating synergies and complementarity between the various instru- ments which contribute to the same objective. C 156/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 16. 8. gramme encourages small-scale local initiatives. One particularly important feature is that the pro- 16. 9. Leader+ should enhance the work of local develop- ment associations and agents. The direct involvement of Carrefour should be envisaged, to improve the implementation of outreach activities, Interregional cooperation and rural networks. 16. 10. Leader+ is to work in conjunction with other programmes having complementary objectives in the field of job creation, vocational training, craft industries and other social measures. 16. 11. With its constituency made up of many locally elected representatives from rural areas with specific structural problems, the COR welcomes the Leader+ programme with particular interest. 16. 12. Locally elected representatives are the prime movers in development processes in rural areas where bottlenecks occur. Local authorities are the bodies sustaining the main investment projects aimed at creating jobs and kick-starting the economy as a whole. It would therefore be counterpro- ductive if, rather than encouraging local planning, Leader+ were to be governed by a bureaucratic or dirigiste approach at European, national or regional level. 16. 13. The COR would like to see the regulations to make the programme operational implemented as soon as possible. Given the level of expectation created, it would be preferable if applications could be assessed in less than the five months mentioned. Local development agents have little experience of dealing with bureaucracies and will find it difficult to accept long delays. Steps must also be taken to prevent delays in programme implementation. Under the Commission’s proposal, the selec- tion of action groups can span a period of as much as two years after approval of the selection criteria. It should be possible to reduce this process to, for instance, six months. In Brussels, 17 February 2000. the light of experiences from the current programme period, the Committee feels that delays in getting the programmes off the ground would undermine the implementation and impact of action in new Leader areas, which must first build up knowhow. In reselected areas, the expertise accumulated could go to waste. Considering the three actions under the Leader+ 16. 14. programme, the COR feels that the bulk of funding should go on the first of these, namely integrated territorial rural development strategies of a pilot nature. The success of applications for funding should depend on whether a local strategy involving various partners actually exists. The COR would like to see infrastructure projects 16. 15. incorporated into the Leader+ programme, and if they are not eligible for this programme, they should be given priority by the assessors of other programmes. The fact is that any rural development strategy requires some basic infrastructure input otherwise the development process is not sustainable. The Commission’s call for cooperation not to be 16. 16. restricted purely to the exchange of experience is in the main endorsed. However, the exchange of experience should not be excluded from support as a separate form of cooperation. 16. 17. The provision under point 9 of the draft guidelines specifying that Community funding ‘will be granted to a limited number of rural territories only’ should be deleted. The provision whereby it is exclusively local action 16. 18. groups (LAGs) which qualify for financial assistance under Leader+ (point 12, first paragraph) should be deleted. The provision whereby ‘at the decision-making level not more than 50 % of a local partnership may be made up of government officials and elected office-holders’ (point 12, third paragraph) should also be abolished. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT


title: Yttrande från Regionkommittén om "Regeringskonferensen 2000"

eurovoc_concepts:
European Union
intergovernmental conference (EU)
promotion of the European idea
public awareness campaign

text: C 156/6 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 6. 6. 2000 Yttrande från Regionkommittén om ”Regeringskonferensen 2000” (2000/C 156/02) BAKGRUND Ordförandeskapets slutsatser från Europeiska rådets möte i Helsingfors den 10–11 december 1999. Rapporten av den 18 november 1999 från Europeiska kommissionens expertgrupp under ledning av Jean-Luc Dehaene. Meddelande från kommissionen till rådet, Europaparlamentet, Ekonomiska och sociala kommittén och Regionkommittén — ”Institutionella reformen — en förutsättning för en lyckosam utvidgning”, Europeiska kommissionens bidrag till förberedelserna inför regeringskonferensen om institutionella frågor av den 10 november 1999. Kommissionens yttrande enligt artikel 48 i Fördraget om Europeiska unionen om sammankallandet av en konferens med företrädare för medlemsstaternas regeringar i syfte att ändra fördragen — 26 januari 2000. Europaparlamentets resolution av den 18 november 1999 om förberedelserna inför reformen av fördragen och nästa regeringskonferens. Europaparlamentets resolution av den 3 februari 2000 om sammankallandet av regeringskonferensen. Regionkommitténs yttranden om subsidiaritetsprincipen (CdR 302/98 fin; CdR 136/95) (1). Regionkommitténs resolution om ”Resultaten från regeringskonferensen” av den 20 november 1997 (CdR 305/97 fin) (2). Regionkommitténs yttrande om de institutionella aspekterna av utvidgningen ”Lokalt och regionalt styre i hjärtat av Europa” av den 15 september 1999 (CdR 52/99 fin) (3). Regionkommitténs resolutioner av den 3 juni 1999 (CdR 54/99 fin) (4) och den 18 november 1999 om nästa regeringskonferens (IGC) (CdR 473/99 fin) (5). Regionkommitténs resolution om ”EU:s pågående utvidgningsprocess” av den 17 november 1999 (CdR 424/99 fin). Presidiets beslut av den 15 juli 1998 att i enlighet med artikel 198 C fjärde stycket i EG-fördraget utarbeta ett yttrande i ärendet och ge utskottet för institutionella frågor i uppgift att ansvara för det förberedande arbetet. Det utkast till yttrande om regeringskonferensen 2000 som utskottet för institutionella frågor antog den 17 januari 2000. Föredragande: Risto Koivisto (FIN–PSE) och Luc van den Brande (B–PPE). För en korrekt juridisk definition av ”subsidiaritet” krävs en hänvisning till regioner i begreppet och i formuleringen av artikel 5. (1) EGT C 198, 14. 7. 1999, s. 73; EGT C 100, 2. 4. 1996, s. 1. (2) EGT C 64, 27. 2. 1998, s. 98. (3) EGT C 374, 23. 12. 1999, s. 15. (4) EGT C 293, 13. 10. 1999, s. 74. (5) EGT C 57, 29. 2. 2000, s. 103. 6. 6. 2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 156/7 Syftet med regeringskonferensen 2000 är att skapa nya möjligheter för att driva på den europeiska integrationen genom att reformera EU-institutionerna på basis av tre kriterier: representativitet, effektivitet och närhet till medborgarna. Eftersom ledamöterna i Regionkommittén är politiska företrädare för lokala och regionala myndigheter, anser sig Regionkommittén kunna bidra till den reformprocess som har till syfte att förbereda Europeiska unionen inför utvidgningen. Utvidgningen kommer att Amsterdamfördraget för att ReK skall bli effektivare och mer representativ. få konsekvenser för Regionkommittén, och ändringar måste göras i Mot bakgrund av de konstitutionella befogenheter som vissa av de regioner som representeras av Regionkommitténs ledamöter åtnjuter — och som ger dem särskild behörighet i samband med ratificeringen av slutsatserna från regeringskonferensen 2000 (belgiska regioner och gemenskaper, tyska och österrikiska delstater) — kommer dessa regioner att spela en viktig roll som företrädare för alla regioner. EU bör även stödja Europeiska rådets och andra organs ansträngningar att främja demokrati i Europas länder. Med beaktande av ovanstående antog Regionkommittén vid sin 32. a plenarsession den 16–17 februari 2000 (sammanträdet den 17 februari) följande yttrande. 1. Inledning 1. 1. Betydelsen av den lokala och regionala nivån har ökat under senare år i Europa. Att beslut fattas nära medborgaren är nödvändigt för att uppväga och komplettera den allmänna tendensen mot globalisering. Därför bör Europeiska unionen inte enbart vara ett samarbete mellan stater — även de lokala och regionala myndigheternas intressen måste tas i beaktande. Detta innebär främst att den europeiska integrationen inte längre bör begränsas till ekonomiskt samarbete. Samarbetet bör i allt högre grad även omfatta politiska beslut som har konsekvenser för alla administrativa nivåer. Eftersom det är de lokala och regionala myndigheternas ansvar att genomföra EU-lagstiftningen inom många nyckelområden, måste de vara välinformerade så att de kan delta fullt ut i beslutsprocessen. Med EU-politiken hoppas man kunna öka de lokala och regionala myndigheternas möjligheter att möta invånarnas behov på olika områden. Sedan 90-talet har man i allt större utsträckning tagit 1. 2. hänsyn till de lokala och regionala myndigheterna när beslut fattas inom EU. Inrättandet av Regionkommittén genom Maastrichtfördraget kan nämnas som exempel på detta. Nume- ra är det dessutom EU:s skyldighet att i förväg utvärdera beslutens ekonomiska och administrativa konsekvenser för det lokala styret. Detta är ett steg i rätt riktning. Det finns dock fortfarande behov av målmedvetna åtgärder för att säkerställa att de lokala och regionala myndigheterna ges den roll de förtjänar inom EU. och regional nivå. Regionkommittén lade fram resolutioner till toppmötena i Köln och Helsingfors. I detta yttrande önskar Regionkommittén redogöra för sina åsikter i de frågor som man vid toppmötet i Helsingfors beslutade skall diskuteras under regeringskonferensen. 2. EU:s utvidgning som utgångspunkt för regeringskon- ferensen 2. 1. EU:s utvidgning är avgörande för Europas framtid. En gemensam europeisk tradition, kulturell mångfald och den fredsprocess som inleddes efter andra världskriget är de avgörande faktorerna för ett förenat Europa. Historiskt sett återgår vi nu till normala förhållanden i och med att vissa av de tidigare konstgjorda gränserna har tagits bort. 2. 2. Utvidgningen är en krävande process såväl för kandi- datländerna som för EU:s nuvarande medlemsstater. Kandidat- länderna kommer att bli tvungna att anpassa sig till omfattande lagstiftningsmässiga, ekonomiska och administrativa föränd- ringar, samtidigt som de nuvarande medlemsstaterna måste vara öppna för en reform av vissa av EU:s strukturer och förfaranden. I ett utvidgat EU kommer man inte att kunna arbeta på samma sätt som tidigare, då både antalet medlemssta- ter och antalet ansvarsområden var mindre än inom den nya Europeiska unionen, som kommer att omfatta de flesta av Europas länder. 1. 3. Av den anledningen bidrog Regionkommittén som företrädare för lokala och regionala myndigheter i EU till föregående regeringskonferens, som inleddes 1996, genom att fästa uppmärksamhet vid frågor som är av betydelse på lokal 2. 3. En institutionell reform är nödvändig inför utvidgning- en. Den nuvarande beslutsstrukturen, som ursprungligen utfor- mats för ett litet antal medlemsstater, kommer inte längre att kunna tillämpas inom ramen för ett utvidgat EU. A¨ ven andra reformer är nödvändiga. C 156/8 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 6. 6. 2000 Enligt Regionkommitténs uppfattning bör arbetet inom ramen för regeringskonferensen inte orsaka förseningar i utvidgnings- förhandlingarna. 2. 4. Att de lokala och regionala myndigheterna i kandidat- länderna deltar i utvidgningsprocessen är av avgörande bety- delse för att säkerställa att EU-medlemskapet får demokratiskt stöd från allmänheten i dessa länder. Med en union som enbart bygger på samarbete mellan regeringarna i medlemsstaterna och kandidatländerna, och där de lokala och regionala myndig- heterna och medborgarna inte har möjlighet att delta, kommer man inte att uppnå hållbara resultat. 2. 5. Regionkommittén har deltagit aktivt i utvidgningspro- cessen genom att framföra sina åsikter i frågor som hänger samman med utvidgningen. Sedan 1997 har kommittén dessutom fått till stånd en diskussion mellan sina ledamöter och politiska representanter på lokal och regional nivå i kandidatländerna. 2. 6. De konferenser som Regionkommittén har anordnat i kandidatländerna har visat att den lokala och regionala nivån är en förutsättning för att en modern demokrati skall kunna skapas i dessa länder. Den lokala och regionala nivån spelar även en mycket viktig roll i genomförandet av EU:s lagstiftning. Dessutom håller de lokala och regionala myndigheternas betydelse på att öka på grund av att många länder för över befogenheter från den centrala regeringen till den lokala och regionala nivån. Trots det får de lokala och regionala myndigheterna i kandidatländerna inte tillräcklig information om förhandlingarna mellan de egna regeringarna och EU; inte heller är de tillräckligt delaktiga i förberedelserna inför medlemskapet. Enligt ReK:s uppfattning bör arbetet inom ramen för regeringskonferensen förenkla tillgången till infor- mation om utvidgningsförhandlingarna. Regionkommittén anser dessutom att det behövs särskilda program inom EU för samarbete mellan de nuvarande med- lemsstaternas lokala och regionala myndigheter och deras Inom ramen för dessa nationella samarbetsorganisationer. program skall vi kunna samarbeta med våra motparter i kandidatländerna, bistå i utvecklingsarbetet och se till att kandidatländernas lokala och regionala myndigheter är väl förberedda inför de framtida uppgifterna och det ansvar som väntar dem såsom medlemmar i unionen. 3. Regeringskonferensens målsättningar underskott i EU-sammanhang. EU är inte tillräckligt demokra- tiskt och på grund av den invecklade arbetsstrukturen ligger EU långt från sina medborgare. För att legitimiteten skall kunna bevaras är det av största betydelse att EU blir mer demokratiskt. 3. 1. 2. Genom utvidgningen betonas i växande utsträckning betydelsen av demokrati som en nyckelprincip i medlemssta- terna. Bland kandidatländerna finns länder där uppfattningen om demokrati och medborgarnas roll i den politiska processen är annorlunda än i de nuvarande medlemsstaterna. Det är viktigt att demokratin i medlemsstaterna inte enbart utövas på nationell nivå, utan bygger på ett demokratiskt lokalt och regionalt styre. A¨ ven principen om insyn ingår i en välfungerande 3. 1. 3. demokrati. Denna princip kan betraktas som en av medborgar- nas demokratiska rättigheter. I EU-sammanhang innebär in- synsprincipen främst att medborgarna har rätt att ta del av information och dokument som rör EU, och att de lagtexter som utarbetas måste bli tydligare. Vidare har EU-institutioner- na försökt öka insynen i arbetet och beslutsprocessen i syfte att främja ökad och fördjupad insikt i den europeiska integrationen. Regionkommittén anser att det är viktigt att principen om insyn tillämpas effektivt inom alla EU:s arbets- områden. 3. 1. 4. En förutsättning för att demokratin inom EU skall kunna fungera korrekt är att fördragen och beslutsförfarandena blir överskådliga och förståeliga för medborgarna. ReK efterly- ser en omfattande rationalisering och förenkling av fördragen. Därför stöder Regionkommittén Europaparlamentets förslag angående fördragens struktur. Fördragen skall slås samman till en enda fördragstext bestående av följande två delar: a) En ”konstitutionell” eller grundläggande del bestående av ingressen, unionens målsättningar, grundläggande rättig- heter samt bestämmelserna beträffande institutionerna, beslutsförfarandena och de olika befogenheterna. Denna del kan enbart ändras genom en regeringskonferens. b) En del bestående av EU:s politik. Denna del kan ändras genom ett enklare förfarande på grundval av kvalificerad majoritet och medbeslutande. 3. 1. Ett medborgarnas Europa som präglas av demokrati och insyn Demokrati på lokal och regional nivå är en av 3. 1. 1. hörnstenarna i samhället och en grundläggande princip i EU:s medlemsstater. A¨ ndå talas det ofta om ett demokratiskt 3. 1. 5. En av de viktigaste uppgifterna inom den närmaste framtiden är att föra EU närmare medborgarna, dvs. att skapa ett medborgarnas Europa. Det stämmer att kontakterna mellan EU och dess medborgare hittills har varit bristfälliga och att det, i takt med att den europeiska integrationen fördjupas och utvidgas, blir allt svårare att skapa sådana kontakter. En 6. 6. 2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 156/9 förutsättning för att EU skall kunna föras närmare medborgar- na är att man lyckas tillämpa principen om insyn i beslutspro- cessen och att man ägnar sig åt allmänna frågor som är av betydelse för allmänheten, t. ex. främjande av sysselsättningen, gränsöverskridande miljöskydd och bekämpning av internatio- nell brottslighet. 3. 1. 6. Utformningen av en stadga om grundläggande rättig- heter i Europeiska unionen kommer att inleda en betydelsefull etapp i relationerna mellan EU och dess medborgare. Man måste noga överväga stadgans innehåll och rättsliga status. 3. 2. Subsidiaritetsprincipen 3. 2. 1. Syftet med subsidiaritetsprincipen är att säkerställa att beslut fattas så nära medborgarna som möjligt. På de områden där EU inte är ensam behörig bör gemenskapsåtgär- der vidtas endast om dessa får större genomslagskraft än åtgärder på nationell nivå. I detta sammanhang bör man i så stor utsträckning som möjligt välja den lokala eller regionala nivån, i synnerhet om det gäller frågor som direkt påverkar medborgarna. Lokala och regionala myndigheter har traditio- nellt arbetat inom områden som direkt berör medborgarna. Inom dessa områden är det särskilt viktigt att subsidiaritets- principen tillämpas. För att EU-politiken skall kunna genomföras och för 3. 2. 2. att man skall kunna få till stånd en ökad politisk, social och geografisk sammanhållning i Europa krävs att EU ger beslutsnivåer nära medborgarna så stort spelrum som möjligt. Samtidigt måste EU få möjlighet att agera effektivt på de områden där dess befogenheter är av betydelse för alla. Medlemsstaterna måste uppträda lojalt gentemot gemenskapen och tillämpa gemenskapsrätten på ett korrekt och överskådligt sätt i enlighet med subsidiaritetsprincipen (1). 3. 2. 3. De lokala och regionala myndigheterna bör rådfrågas om all gemenskapspolitik som har betydelsefulla konsekvenser för dem innan politiska strategier beslutas och genomförs. Vid behandlingen av förslag till EU-lagstiftning önskar Regionkom- mittén uttala sig om såväl de allmänna effekterna på lokala och regionala myndigheter som efterlevnaden av subsidiaritets- principen. Medlemsstaterna bör även förhandla med lokala och regionala myndigheter när de formulerar sina åsikter i frågor som påverkar dessa myndigheter. 4. Regeringskonferensen: förberedelser och innehåll 4. 1. Regionkommittén välkomnar den rapport om de insti- tutionella konsekvenserna av EU:s utvidgning som utarbetats av en arbetsgrupp under ledning av Belgiens f. d. premiärminis- ter Jean-Luc Dehaene. Regionkommittén ställer sig i synnerhet positiv till att man i rapporten betraktar kontakten med medborgarna som en prioriterad fråga. (1) CdR 302/98 fin. 4. 2. I sina bidrag till förberedelserna inför regeringskonfe- rensen om institutionella frågor (2) fastställer Europeiska kom- missionen att anslutningen av ett flertal nya medlemsstater är den viktigaste politiska målsättningen i början av det nya århundradet. Efter det att regeringskonferensen har avslutats kommer EU inte att kunna hantera utvidgningen och den institutionella reformen på samma gång. Därför måste en hållbar grund utarbetas för gemenskapens institutioner. Refor- mer måste genomföras nu, eftersom EU efter utvidgningen måste kunna uppnå sina målsättningar och stärka den euro- peiska integrationen tillsammans med de nya medlemsstaterna. Regionkommittén anser att kommissionen mycket tydligt har redogjort för syftet med regeringskonferensen och de motiv som ligger bakom och att detta bör ligga till grund för den kommande regeringskonferensen. I sitt yttrande enligt artikel 48 i Fördraget om Europeiska unionen om sammankal- landet av en konferens med företrädare för medlemsstaternas regeringar i syfte att ändra fördragen — 26 januari 2000 föreslår kommissionen att antalet ledamöter i Regionkom- mittén ses över under regeringskonferensen. Kommittén har undersökt ärendet och utarbetat ett förslag om antalet nya ledamöter. 4. 3. Regionkommittén välkomnar att Europaparlamentet i sin resolution om sammankallandet av regeringskonferen- sen (3) betonar vikten av allmän debatt, insyn och demokratiskt ansvar. Kommittén anser att dessa frågor är av största betydel- se, liksom den ständiga dialogen med kandidatländerna, vilket också betonas i resolutionen. 5. Regionkommitténs slutsatser 5. 1. Det är enbart genom allmänhetens stöd som EU kan få legitimitet. Att föra EU och medborgarna närmare varandra måste därför vara utgångspunkten för en reform. Det underlig- gande syftet med en institutionell reform måste vara att stärka och demokratisera EU:s institutioner så att de kan möta de utmaningar som en utvidgning innebär. 5. 2. Regionkommittén efterlyser en omfattande rationalise- ring och förenkling av fördragen. Därför stöder ReK Europa- parlamentets förslag angående fördragens struktur 5. 3. De huvudpunkter som skall diskuteras under regerings- konferensen — kommissionens sammansättning, röstfördel- ningen i rådet och ökad tillämpning av kvalificerad majoritet vid omröstning — har betydelse för EU:s framtid, men fler punkter måste läggas till för en mer genomgripande reform. Möjligheten att göra detta finns för övrigt inskriven i slutsatser- na från Europeiska rådets möte i Helsingfors. Man måste finna (2) Meddelande av den 10 november 1999 och yttrande av den 26 januari 2000. KOM(1999) 592 slutlig — KOM(2000) 34 slutlig. (3) A5-0018/2000. C 156/10 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 6. 6. 2000 lösningar som både nuvarande och framtida medlemsstater kan acceptera. Särskild hänsyn måste tas för att undvika konflikter mellan små och stora medlemsstater. Det är även viktigt att regeringskonferensen granskar möjligheten att i det nya fördraget införa texten till stadgan om grundläggande rättigheter i Europeiska unionen. Regler för ökat samarbete och större flexibilitet bör antas, såsom föreslås i Dehaene- rapporten. Kommittén hänvisar till de modeller och förfaranden som finns för de regionala respektive kommunala nivåernas medverkan i den nationella opinionsbildningen i frågor som berör den europeiska integrationen. Vi uppmanar medlemsstaterna att dra nytta av regionernas, städernas och kommunernas erfaren- heter, kunnande och närhet till medborgarna; på detta sätt kan besluten på europeisk nivå lättare accepteras. 5. 4. Kommittén anser att artikel 5 i fördraget bör ändras så att inte enbart gemenskapsnivån och medlemsstaternas nationella suveränitet omfattas, utan så att hänsyn även tas till de lokala och regionala myndigheternas särskilda ställning. Detta är en målsättning som Regionkommittén prioriterar högt, som framgår av kommitténs yttrande om subsidiaritet ”För en ny subsidiaritetskultur! En appell från Regionkom- mittén” (1). Genom denna fullständiga tillämpning av subsidia- ritetsprincipen illustreras den roll som regionala och lokala myndigheter önskar spela i den europeiska integrationsproces- sen. En klar angivelse av vilka nivåer som sköter vilka uppgifter, och bär ansvaret för dessa, gör att allmänhetens insyn och acceptans ökar. ReK vill än en gång understryka betydelsen av Belgiens, Tysklands och O¨ sterrikes gemensamma förklaring, enligt vil- ken ”insatser som Europeiska gemenskapen gör i enlighet med subsidiaritetsprincipen inte bara gäller medlemsstaterna utan också enheter inom dessa i den utsträckning som dessa enheter enligt nationell konstitutionell rätt har befogenhet att själva stifta lagar”. Kommittén anser dessutom att denna förklaring i princip och i enlighet med den interna förvaltningsorganisatio- nen i medlemsstaterna bör kunna tillämpas analogt på lokala och regionala myndigheter i medlemsstater som inte är förbundsstater, och anmodar samtliga medlemsstater, först och främst de medlemsstater där kommunerna eller regionerna har konstitutionella lagstiftningsbefogenheter, att ansluta sig till denna förklaring. De regionala parlamenten med lagstiftningsbefogenheter arbe- tar på att vidareutveckla de institutionella kontakterna med Europaparlamentet; ReK stöder denna strävan. Regionkommittén bör inbjudas att delta i regerings- 5. 5. konferensen från början på samma villkor som Europaparla- mentet och tillåtas spela en aktiv roll i förhandlingarna och beslutsprocessen vid regeringskonferensen. Eftersom de institutionella reformer som skall utarbetas under regeringskonferensen kommer att få långtgående konsekvenser för EU-medborgarna, bör lokala och regionala myndigheter hållas informerade och ges tillfälle att direkt påverka utform- ningen av de rättsliga instrument som dessa reformer kräver. (1) CdR 302/98 fin. 5. 6. De lokala och regionala myndigheterna i Europa är en symbol för den stora kulturella mångfalden i Europa. Detta grundläggande särdrag i vårt samhälle kommer att förstärkas i och med utvidgningen, genom vilken många regioner från Central- och O¨ steuropa förenas med EU:s medlemsstater. Lokala och regionala myndigheter hoppas att denna kulturella mångfald skall präglas av subsidiaritetsprincipen på ett korrekt sätt i politiskt hänseende, eftersom frågan faller inom de lokala och regionala myndigheternas ansvarsområde. 5. 7. Från och med nu kommer Regionkommittén att noga övervaka utvecklingen inom ramen för regeringskonferensen i allmänhet, med beaktande av den tidsplan som Europeiska rådet i Helsingfors föreskrivit. Kommittén kommer i synnerhet att fästa uppmärksamhet vid det portugisiska ordförandeska- pets möjligheter att föreslå tillägg av nya punkter till regerings- konferensens dagordning. Det är således inte uteslutet att Regionkommittén innan dess utarbetar ett nytt initiativ. Med hänsyn till punkterna 20 och 23 i ordförandeskapets slutsatser från Helsingfors, och i synnerhet bilaga III: ”Riktlinjer för reformer och rekommendationer för verksamhetens ge- nomförande”, önskar Regionkommittén bli rådfrågad i dessa ärenden, som är av särskild betydelse för regioner med lagstiftande befogenheter. De gemensamma principer som omnämns i fördragen 5. 8. frihet, och som ligger till grund för EU-samarbetet, dvs. demokrati, respekt för mänskliga rättigheter och grundläggan- de friheter samt rättssäkerhet, bör kompletteras med principen om lokalt och regionalt självstyre. 5. 9. Regionkommittén föreslår att dess ställning som EU- institution erkänns i artikel 7. 1 i fördraget. Regeringskonferen- sen bör bidra till att man uppnår målet att införa en tredje, lokal och regional, nivå för det politiska styret inom EU. 5. 10. Regionkommittén vill i detta sammanhang betona betydelsen av sin resolution av den 20 november 1997 om resultaten av regeringskonferensen 1997, och då i synnerhet punkt 10, 11 och 12 beträffande kommitténs åsikter om bristerna i samband med föregående regeringskonferens. Många av dessa brister (2) kvarstår inför regeringskonferensen 2000. (2) Nämligen ändring av f. d. artikel 3b (nu artikel 5 i EG-fördraget) och den förklaring som bifogats om subsidiaritetsprincipen, principen om lokalt självstyre, ReK:s ställning som EU-institution, rätten att väcka talan vid EG-domstolen och tillämpningen av medbeslutandeförfarandet. 6. 6. 2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 156/11 5. 11. Utvidgningen innebär att antalet ledamöter i Region- kommittén måste utökas. Genom att öka det totala antalet ledamöter kan man säkerställa att lokala och regionala myndig- heter i de nya medlemsstaterna representeras på ett korrekt sätt i kommittén. Kommittén anser att det högsta antalet ledamöter inom Regionkommittén bör begränsas till cirka 350. På så sätt kan man säkerställa att storleken på de nationella delegationerna, de lokala och regionala myndighe- ternas representation och medlemsstaternas geografiska sprid- ning blir rättvis. Det är viktigt att se till att dessa kriterier även uppfylls när små nationella delegationer utses (1). Därför stöder kommittén inte kommissionens förslag enligt vilket antalet ledamöter i Regionkommittén bör begränsas till en tredjedel av antalet ledamöter i Europaparlamentet, vilket enligt kom- missionens förslag innebär högst 233 ledamöter. De principer som för närvarande föreskrivs i fördraget 5. 12. och som ligger till grund för utnämning av ledamöter i Regionkommittén bör omprövas. För att kunna utses till ledamot måste kandidaterna inneha ett demokratiskt mandat i sin region eller kommun, eller vara politiskt ansvariga inför en församling som tillsatts genom allmänna val (2). En ledamot (1) CdR 52/99 fin. (2) CdR 305/97 fin. Bryssel den 17 februari 2000. som förlorar ett sådant mandat bör efter sex månader automa- tiskt lämna sin post som ledamot av kommittén. Medlemssta- terna skall säkerställa att efterträdare utnämns i tid. 5. 13. Regionkommittén måste ges formell rätt att väcka talan vid EG-domstolen för att kunna försvara sina kompetens- områden. A¨ ven regioner med lagstiftningsbefogenheter bör ges denna rätt (2). 5. 14. Kontakter och överläggningar mellan institutionerna är en förutsättning för ett effektivt institutionssystem. Region- kommittén hoppas få delta i överläggningar om frågor som diskuteras vid informella rådssammanträden. 5. 15. På områden där samråd med ReK är obligatoriskt bör kommissionen och rådet anmodas att motivera varför de inte följer ReK:s rekommendationer, om och när de väljer att inte göra det. Europaparlamentet bör göra detta på frivillig grund. 5. 16. Slutligen vill vi betona att Regionkommittén spelar en nyckelroll som företrädare för de lokala och regionala myndigheterna och EU-medborgarna. Kommittén bidrar till att integrera det europeiska målsättningarna i medborgarnas vardag genom att hjälpa dem att förstå EU:s ambitioner och målsättningar. Regionkommitténs ordförande Jos CHABERT


title: European Parliament resolution on multi-ethnic violence in Mitroviæa, the situation of Albanian Kosovar prisoners in Serbia and, in particular, the case of Flora Brovina

eurovoc_concepts:
Albania
Serbia
ethnic conflict
political prisoner

formats: pdf print

text: 29. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 339/273 13. Human rights: Violence between ethnic groups in Mitrovic´a; Albanian Koso- var prisoners in Serbia, notably the plight of Mrs Flora Brovina Thursday 17 February 2000 B5-0141, 0150, 0158 and 0176/2000 European Parliament resolution on multi-ethnic violence in Mitrovic´ a, the situation of Albanian Kosovar prisoners in Serbia and, in particular, the case of Flora Brovina The European Parliament, (cid:1) having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, in particular its resolution of 22 July 1999 (1), (cid:1) having regard to its resolution of 16 September 1999 (2) on the detainment of Albanian Kosovar prisoners in Serbia, (cid:1) having regard to the UN Security Council resolution of 10 June 1999, (cid:1) recalling the statement of 13 January 2000 of its Delegation for Relations with South-East Europe on the sentencing of Ms Flora Brovina in Serbia, A. deeply concerned by recent events in the Mitrovic´a region, where, after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a KFOR-escorted UNHCR bus carrying Serb civilians, killing two passengers and injuring three, violent clashes took place between the Albanian and Serb populations that could hardly be controlled by the international military contingent, B. whereas KFOR evacuated some 500 people, in particular Albanian Kosovar families, following the violent clashes that broke out after the attack on the bus, C. noting the deepening division of the city and the surrounding suburbs along ethnic lines, D. pointing out the plight of the Serb minority, which is living in dire straits in enclaves defended by KFOR, with no possibility to move freely, E. whereas the Council has not yet responded to the call made by Parliament for a discussion of the question of Albanian Kosovar political prisoners in Serbia, F. 1. 2. 3. shocked and appalled by reports of the unfounded sentencing of Ms Flora Brovina, an Albanian Koso- var doctor, to twelve years’ imprisonment, by a court in the Serbian city of Nis, Condemns strongly the outbreak of violence in Mitrovic´a by all opposing groups in the city; Regrets that the latest wave of violence has resulted in a number of victims on all sides; Condemns the first direct assault on KFOR troops by snipers in Mitrovic´a; Expresses once again its grave concern over the situation of thousands of Albanian Kosovar detainees 4. imprisoned in appalling conditions in Serbia; Urges the Council to take a new, decisive initiative with a view to exerting strong pressure on the 5. Belgrade authorities and obtaining the release of Albanian Kosovar political prisoners; Appeals to the Serbian government to immediately release Ms Brovina, who, according to the latest 6. news, is being held prisoner in the prison hospital at Pozarevac in Serbia, where she is in a poor state of health; (1) OJ C 301, 18. 10. 1999, p. 30. (2) Minutes of that Sitting, Part II, Item 16. C 339/274 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29. 11. 2000 Thursday 17 February 2000 7. Urges all sides involved to cease immediately all acts of aggression and to comply with Regulation 2000/4, which prohibits incitement to national, racial, religious or ethnic hatred, discord or intolerance, as a key element for a democratic society in which civil discussions and political debates must take place in a responsible and non-violent manner; Calls on both parties to cooperate fully with UNMIK in order to set up an effective power-sharing 8. administration capable of facilitating reconstruction activities and a return to daily life; Gives its full support to the taking of appropriate action by KFOR in response to criminal activity 9. against any citizens of Kosovo and to protect civilians who belong to ethnic minorities; Calls on the Council and the Member States to redouble their efforts to provide the necessary man- 10. power and resources for the United Nations police and for the establishment of the judiciary; 11. Urges, in this respect, the Council and the Commission to make EU support conditional, favouring reconstruction projects in those parts of Kosovo where human and minority rights are fully respected and democratic principles guaranteed; 12. Calls on the Council to link the softening of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the adoption of a more conciliatory approach by the Belgrade authorities on the issue of the Albanian Kosovar political prisoners held in Serbia; 13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the authorities of Serbia and of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the UN Repre- sentative in Kosovo, the OSCE and the International Red Cross. 14. Human rights: Press freedom in Angola B5-0151, 0160, 0165, 0166 and 0178/2000 European Parliament resolution on press freedom in Angola The European Parliament, (cid:1) having regard to the previous declarations of the EU on Angola, (cid:1) having regard to the UN declaration on human rights and the UN declaration on human rights defen- ders adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1998, A. noting that since January 1999 some 20 journalists, mainly from the independent media, have been detained and questioned concerning alleged defamation and/or crimes against the security of the state, B. noting the pending trial of journalist and human rights defender Rafael Marques de Morais for defa- mation of President Eduardo dos Santos, together with two other journalists, Joaquim Manual Aguiar dos Santos and António José Freitas de Jesus Correia, who have been charged with defamation in unrelated, yet similar cases, C. shocked by the remarks made on 19 January 2000 during a parliamentary debate on press freedom and freedom of expression in Angola by a senior MPLA (Angolan People’s Liberation Movement) Member of Parliament, Mr Mendes de Carvalho, suggesting that Mr Marques would not live to the age of 40 if he kept writing critically about the Angolan government, D. whereas the leading institutions of Angola have not to date seen fit to dissociate themselves from these unacceptable remarks which represent a threat to the life of Mr Marques as well as a serious attack on press freedom and freedom of expression in Angola,


title: Résolution du Parlement européen sur l'accord entre le Parlement européen et la Commission relatif aux modalités d'application de la décision (1999/468/CE) du Conseil du 28 juin 1999 fixant les modalités de l'exercice des compétences d'exécution conférées à la Commission

eurovoc_concepts:
European Commission
capacity to exercise rights
executive competence
powers of the institutions (EU)

text: 29. 11. 2000 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 339/269 Jeudi, 17 février 2000 21. est d’avis que la mise en œuvre de l’accord de stabilisation et d’association doit être accompagnée de la publication d’un Livre blanc qui pose des jalons précis constituant une aide dans les efforts consentis par le pays pour adopter l’acquis communautaire et que les progrès de la mise en œuvre doivent être mesurés non pas seulement, pour la première fois, au terme de cinq années dans un rapport de la Commission, mais d’une manière continue par périodes de deux ans; 22. estime que l’application des programmes doit être décentralisée de Bruxelles vers Skopje, la nécessité de renforcer la coordination entre programmation, gestion, mise en œuvre et suivi devant être dûment prise en compte et les priorités à court terme devant être l’amélioration des structures administratives, des régimes douaniers et de la gestion des passages aux frontières, ainsi que la promotion des petites et moyennes entreprises; 23. estime que, afin de promouvoir et de renforcer la coexistence, il conviendrait d’axer un programme spécifique sur le développement d’initiatives et de projets interethniques, tant dans la société civile que dans le domaine économique; renouvelle sa demande de voir la représentation de la Commission à Skopje revalorisée par l’obten- 24. tion du statut d’une délégation; espère que le dialogue engagé sous les auspices des Nations unies entre la Grèce et l’ARYM débou- 25. chera au plus vite sur le choix d’une appellation acceptable par les deux parties; 26. charge sa Présidente de transmettre la présente résolution à la Commission et au Conseil. 11. Comitologie A5-0021/2000 Résolution du Parlement européen sur l’accord entre le Parlement européen et la Commission relatif aux modalités d’application de la décision (1999/468/CE) du Conseil du 28 juin 1999 fixant les modalités de l’exercice des compétences d’exécution conférées à la Commission Le Parlement européen, 5 vu la décision (1999/468/CE) du Conseil du 28 juin 1999 (1), 5 vu son avis du 6 mai 1999 sur la proposition de décision du Conseil fixant les modalités de l’exercice des compétences d’exécution conférées à la Commission (2), 5 vu l’accord conclu avec la Commission, 5 vu l’article 54 de son règlement, 5 vu le rapport de la commission des affaires constitutionnelles (A5-0021/2000), A. B. considérant que l’article 8 de la décision du Conseil du 28 juin 1999 reconnaît au Parlement européen un pouvoir d’intervention au cas où il considère que les compétences d’exécution seraient dépassées, ce qui oblige la Commission à réexaminer le projet portant sur la mesure d’exécution visée en tenant compte de la résolution du Parlement et également à donner une information motivée des suites apportées à une telle résolution, considérant que l’article 7, paragraphe 3, de la décision prévoit une information complète du Parle- ment européen et que ceci concerne les ordres du jour, les projets de mesures d’exécution découlant des actes adoptés en codécision et soumis aux comités, les résultats des votes, les comptes rendus sommaires, les listes des participants aux comités et les projets de mesures d’exécution transmis au Conseil, (1) (2) JO L 184 du 17. 7. 1999, p. 23. JO C 279 du 1. 10. 1999, p. 404. C 339/270 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes FR 29. 11. 2000 Jeudi, 17 février 2000 C. D. considérant que la nouvelle décision sur la «comitologie» ne répond qu’en partie aux attentes du Par- lement européen, mais qu’il convient néanmoins de souligner qu’elle constitue un pas en avant réel par rapport à la situation précédente, considérant que le Parlement européen et la Commission ont décidé de s’accorder sur les modalités d’application de la décision du Conseil sur la Comitologie et que cet accord avec la Commission concerne en particulier l’application de l’article 7, paragraphe 3, relatif à l’information du Parlement européen et de l’article 8 relatif au droit d’intervention du Parlement européen; 1. approuve l’accord ci-annexé; considère que tous les «comités» existant préalablement à la décision du 28 juin 1999 doivent être 2. reconduits selon les nouvelles procédures et donc s’associe à la déclaration no 2 (1) du Conseil et de la Commission relative à ladite décision; 3. déclare que le présent accord ne porte pas préjudice au droit du Parlement d’adopter toute résolution sur tout sujet, surtout lorsque le Parlement s’oppose au contenu d’un projet relatif à une mesure d’exécu- tion, de même qu’il ne porte pas non plus préjudice au droit du Parlement de s’opposer à une mesure d’exécution renvoyée au Conseil lorsqu’une procédure de comitologie n’a pas abouti (conformément à l’article 88 du règlement du Parlement); 4. considère que le présent accord entre le Parlement et la Commission rend caducs et donc sans effets, les accords précédents (accord Plumb/Delors de 1988 5 accord Samland/Williamson de 1996 5 modus vivendi de 1994 (2)); décide que l’accord et la présente résolution seront publiés au Journal officiel des Communautés 5. européennes, série «L», ainsi qu’en annexe à son règlement; charge sa Présidente de transmettre la présente résolution et son annexe, au Conseil et à la Commis- 6. sion. (1) (2) JO C 203 du 17. 7. 1999, p. 1. JO C 102 du 4. 4. 1996, p. 1. ANNEXE Accord entre le Parlement européen et la Commission relatif aux modalités d’application de la décision (1999/468/CE) du Conseil du 28 juin 1999 fixant les modalités de l’exercice des compé- tences d’exécution conférées à la Commission En application de l’article 7, paragraphe 3, de la décision 1999/468/CE (1), le Parlement européen est 1. régulièrement tenu informé par la Commission des travaux des comités opérant selon des procédures de comitologie. Il reçoit, à cet effet, en même temps que les membres des comités et dans les mêmes condi- tions, les projets d’ordre du jour des réunions, les projets de mesures d’exécution qui sont soumis à ces comités en vertu d’actes de base arrêtés selon la procédure visée à l’article 251 du traité, ainsi que le résultat des votes, les comptes rendus sommaires des réunions, les listes des autorités auxquelles appartien- nent les personnes désignées par les États membres pour les représenter. 2. En outre, la Commission consent à envoyer au Parlement européen, pour information, à la demande de sa commission parlementaire compétente, des projets spécifiques de mesures d’exécution dont les actes de base n’ont pas été adoptés en codécision mais qui revêtent une importance particulière pour le Parle- ment européen. Conformément à l’arrêt du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes du 19 juillet 1999 (Affaire T-188/97 Rothmans contre Commission), le Parlement européen peut deman- der l’accès aux procès-verbaux de ces comités. Le Parlement européen et la Commission considèrent, pour ce qui les concerne, comme caducs et 3. partant sans effet les accords suivants: accord Plumb/Delors de 1988, accord Samland/Williamson de 1996 et modus vivendi de 1994 (2). (1) (2) JO C 184 du 17. 7. 1999, p. 23. JO C 102 du 4. 4. 1996, p. 1. 29. 11. 2000 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 339/271 Jeudi, 17 février 2000 4. Dès que les conditions techniques seront réunies à cet effet, la transmission des documents visés à l’article 7, paragraphe 3, de la décision 1999/468/CE sera assurée par des moyens électroniques. Les docu- ments qui revêtent un caractère confidentiel sont traités selon des procédures administratives internes éta- blies par chaque institution de manière à offrir toutes les garanties nécessaires. 5. En application de l’article 8 de la décision 1999/468/CE, le Parlement européen peut déclarer, par une résolution motivée, qu’un projet de mesures d’exécution d’un acte de base adopté selon la procédure visée à l’article 251 du traité, excède les compétences d’exécution prévues dans cet acte de base. Le Parlement européen adopte cette résolution motivée en séance plénière; il dispose, à cet effet, d’un 6. délai d’un mois à partir de la réception du projet définitif de mesures d’exécution dans les versions linguis- tiques soumises à la Commission. En cas d’urgence, ainsi que pour des mesures de gestion courante et/ou ayant une durée de validité 7. limitée, il sera fait recours à un délai inférieur. Ce délai pourra être très court en cas d’urgence extrême, en particulier pour des raisons de santé publique. Le Commissaire compétent fixe le délai approprié et en indique la raison. Le Parlement européen peut alors faire usage d’une procédure par laquelle l’application de l’article 8 peut être déléguée à sa commission parlementaire compétente dans le délai en question. Suite à la résolution motivée du Parlement, le Commissaire compétent informe celui-ci ou, le cas 8. échéant, la commission parlementaire compétente, des suites que la Commission entend y donner. Le Parlement européen soutient l’objectif et les modalités prévues par la déclaration no 2 du Conseil 9. et de la Commission (1). Cette déclaration vise à simplifier le système d’exécution communautaire par un alignement des procédures de comités actuellement en vigueur résultant de la déci- sion 1999/468/CE du Conseil. sur celles (1) JO C 203 du 17. 7. 1999, p. 1. 12. Incidents racistes et xénophobes à El Ejido (Espagne) B5-0149, 0159, 0162, 0169 et 0175/2000 Résolution du Parlement européen sur la flambée raciste et xénophobe à El Ejido (Espagne) Le Parlement européen, 5 vu l’article 13 du traité CE, 5 vu les conclusions du Conseil européen de Tampere, 5 vu sa résolution du 17 septembre 1992 sur les émeutes de Rostock-Lichdenhagen et dans d’autres villes des nouveaux Länder (1), 5 vu sa résolution du 20 février 1997 sur le racisme, la xénophobie et l’extrême-droite (2), 5 vu sa résolution du 8 octobre 1998 sur la coopération avec les pays méditerranéens en matière d’im- migration (3), A. B. C. (1) (2) (3) considérant la création de l’Observatoire européen des phénomènes racistes, xénophobes et anti- sémites, considérant la flambée raciste et xénophobe qui s’est emparée de la ville andalouse et espagnole de El Ejido après la mort tragique, le 5 février, de la jeune Encarnación López, dernier d’une série de trois crimes survenus dans la localité en l’espace de quinze jours et qui auraient tous été commis par des immigrants, et considérant la vague de violence aveugle, les persécutions à l’encontre des immigrants, les brutalités ainsi que les incendies de maisons et de biens matériels, considérant que cette violence s’est exercée aussi contre le siège des ONG qui s’occupent d’accueillir et d’installer les immigrants, et reconnaissant le travail accompli par ces organisations dans la région, JO C 284 du 2. 11. 1992, p. 99. JO C 85 du 17. 3. 1997, p. 150. JO C 328 du 26. 10. 1998, p. 184