You are on page 1of 1

C 310/76 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 10.


Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1998)

The Commission does not believe that the provisions relating to diabetes mellitus, stipulated in point 10 of
Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) constitute a discrimination
under the new Article 6A of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam.

For more detailed information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written
question E-113/98 by Mrs Waddington (2) and oral question 60/98 by Mrs McIntosh during question time at
Parliament’s February 1998 part-session (3). The Commission is also sending to the Honourable Member and to
the Secretariat general of Parliament a copy of the letter which it has sent to general enquirers on his specific

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) See page 23.
(3) Debate of the Parliament (February 1998).

(98/C 310/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/98

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the EU’s development programmes

In the European Union’s decision-making on development aid projects, greater account should be taken of the
priorities and needs of the recipient country. In the EDF process the Commission and the Member States are
represented, whereas the target countries for the project are not even given the opportunity to comment in all
cases. However, in the new operational guidelines for EDF projects, the government of the target country is made
responsible for project leadership. This is a perfectly reasonable principle, but is impossible to put into practice
unless the recipient country’s own needs and priorities guide the selection of development projects.

In order to ensure that the target countries’ own priorities are taken into account, would it be possible to delegate
responsibility for approval of projects in the context of the EDF process to a body made up of EU Member States’
representatives and Commission representatives operating in the target country?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1998)

The provisions of the fourth Lomé Convention (the principles and guidelines set out in Article 221 and Article
222, and the implementing procedures set out in Articles 285-289) make clear the pivotal role of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States receiving Community aid in the decision-making process for the European
Development Fund.

Those provisions permit the recipient countries’ priorities and needs to be fully taken into account in projects and
programmes financed.

Project identification and preparation, then, are the responsibility of the ACP State (Article 285).

Appraisal is conducted jointly by the ACP State and the Community, represented on the spot by the Head of the
Commission Delegation (Article 287).

The financing proposal is drawn up by the Head of Delegation in close collaboration with the ACP State, and
finalised by the Commission. The ACP State receives a copy and may request changes to it (Article 288).

Where the financing proposal is not adopted by the Community, the ACP State may request that it be referred
either to the ACP-EC Development Finance Cooperation Committee or to the Community’s decision-making
body (Article 289).