Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chapter 4 The Role and Function of Structural and Cohesion Funds and the Interaction of the EU Regional Policy with the Internal Market Policies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Role of the Regions in EU Governance

Abstract

The European Regional policy should contribute to increasing growth, competitiveness and employment by incorporating the Union’s priorities for sustainable development as defined at the Lisbon European Council and at the Göteborg European Council. Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that, in order to strengthen its economic and social cohesion, the EU is to aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the adverse economic conditions of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. Article 175 TFEU requires this action to be supported by the Structural Funds, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the other existing Financial Instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Regulation 2088/85, O.J. 1985 L 197/1; see also see Decision 88/258, O.J. 1988 L 107/39 as an example of an IMP. Portugal and Spain did not come under the IMPs but other programmes were set up, see Regulation 2053/88 (O.J. 1988 L 185/21) setting up the Portuguese European Development and Investment Programme (PEDIP) for Portugal.

  2. 2.

    See O.J. 1988 L 185/9. See O.J. 1988 L 374 and the International Agreement on Budgetary Discipline and Improvement of Budgetary Discipline (O.J. 1988 L 184/33, point 17).

  3. 3.

    See O.J. 1985 L 197/1.

  4. 4.

    See O.J. 1984 L 169/1, as amended by the Act of Spanish and Portuguese Accession, Reg. 3634/85 (O.J. 1985 L 350/6) and Reg. 3641/85 (O.J. 1985 L 350/40).

  5. 5.

    See O.J. 1975 L 73/47, corrigendum in O.J. 1975 L 117/22, as amended by Dec. 79/137 (O.J. 1979 L 35/9).

  6. 6.

    Two most interesting ERDF projects are RESIDER programme (Reg. 328/88, O.J. 1988 L 33/1) and the RENAVAL programme (Reg. 2506/88, O.J. 1988 L 225/24) for the steel and ship building sectors respectively. As an example of the overlap between regional policy and high technology see Reg. 3300/86 (O.J. 1986 L 305/1) setting up the STAR programme and of the overlap with energy policy see Reg. 3301/86 (O.J. 1986 L 305/6) setting up the Valoren programme.

  7. 7.

    For the period 2000–2006, EUR 1,040 million a year (at 1999 prices) has been made available for this instrument. During its first 4 years of implementation (2000–2003), ISPA grant-aided over 300 large-scale infrastructure investments in the ten (at that time) candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia). Assistance amounted to EUR 7 billion for an investment value of over EUR 11.6 billion (current prices). After the EU enlargement in 2004, the remaining ISPA beneficiary countries were Bulgaria and Romania (until 2007), the other beneficiary countries having become eligible to the Cohesion Fund. Since 1 January 2005, Croatia benefits from ISPA as well.

  8. 8.

    Amended by Regulation 728/70 and subsequently superseded by Council Regulation 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy [O.J. L 160 26 June 1999].

  9. 9.

    The FIFG was not a Structural Fund, but it financed structural actions in the fisheries sector. It became a Structural Fund in the 2000–2006 programme period.

  10. 10.

    The Cohesion Fund initially was only applicable to Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, but cannot be used to finance projects that receive support from the ERDF, the ESF or the guidance section of the EAGGF.

  11. 11.

    See Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 May 2003.

  12. 12.

    The Commission should establish the indicative annual breakdown of available commitment appropriations using an objective and transparent method, taking into account the Commission's proposal, the conclusions of the European Council of 15 and 16 December 2005 and the Inter-institutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (O.J. C 139, 14 June 2006, p. 1) with a view to achieving a significant concentration on the regions whose development is lagging behind, including those receiving transitional support because of the statistical effect.

  13. 13.

    See Bovis (2005), pp. 290–310. Also Communication from the European Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, “Working together to maintain momentum” 2001 Review of the Internal Market Strategy, Brussels, 11 April 2001, COM (2001) 198 final. Also, European Commission, Commission Communication, Public procurement in the European Union, Brussels, March 11, 1998, COM (98) 143. See Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating social considerations into public procurement, COM (2001) 566, 15 October 2001. Also, Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating environmental considerations into public procurement, COM (2001) 274, 4 July 2001.

  14. 14.

    See Directive 2004/18, O.J. L 134, 30 April 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts and Directive 2004/17, O.J. L 134, 30 April 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sector.

  15. 15.

    See Bovis (2003a).

  16. 16.

    See Bovis (2002).

  17. 17.

    See European Commission, White Paper for the Completion of the Internal Market, (COM) 85 310 fin., 1985. Also Commission of the European Communities (1988). Also the report by Cecchinni (1988).

  18. 18.

    See European Commission, Special Sectoral Report no 1, Public Procurement, Brussels, November 1997.

  19. 19.

    See European Commission, Public Procurement: Regional and Social Aspects (COM(89) 400.

  20. 20.

    See Articles 29(4) and 29(a) of the EC Public Works Directive 71/305; also Article 26 of EC Public Supplies Directive 77/62.

  21. 21.

    See, Fernadez-Martin and Stehmann (1991).

  22. 22.

    See Bovis (1998a).

  23. 23.

    European Commission, Public Procurement: Regional and Social Aspects (COM(89) 400).

  24. 24.

    See Commission of the European Communities (1992).

  25. 25.

    See Case 84/86, Commission v. Hellenic Republic, not reported; Case C-21/88, Dupont de Nemours Italiana S.p.A v. Unita Sanitaria Locale No.2 di Carrara, judgment of March 20, 1990, [1990] ECR 889; Case C-21/88, Dupont de Nemours Italiana S.p.A v. Unita Sanitaria Locale No.2 di Carrara, judgment of March 20, 1990, [1990] ECR 889; Case C-351/88, Lavatori Bruneau Slr. v. Unita Sanitaria Locale RM/24 di Monterotondo, judgment of 11 July 1991; Case C-360/89, Commission v. Italy, [1992] ECR I 3401; Case C- 362/90, Commission v. Italy, judgment of March 31, 1992.

  26. 26.

    See case C-74/76, Ianelli & Volpi Spa v. Ditta Paola Meroni, [1977] 2 CMLR 688.

  27. 27.

    See case C-18/84, Commission v. France, 1985, ECR 1339; case 103/84, Commission v. Italy, 1986, ECR 1759; also, case C-244/81, Commission v. Ireland, 1982, ECR 4005.

  28. 28.

    See Bovis (1998b); Fernadez-Martin and Stehmann (1991)

  29. 29.

    See the Conclusions of the European Council of 14 and 15 December 2001, paragraph 26; Conclusions of the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council meeting of 26 November 2001 on services of general interest; Commission Report to the Laeken European Council on Services of General Interest of 17 October 2001, COM (2001) 598; Communication from the Commission on the application of the State aid rules to public service broadcasting, O.J. 2001 C 320, p. 5; see also the two general Commission Communications on Services of General Interest of 1996 and 2000 in O.J. 1996 C 281, p. 3 and O.J. 2001 C 17, p. 4.

  30. 30.

    See Case C-387/92 [1994] ECR I-877; Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-229; Case C-174/97 P [1998] ECR I-1303; Case T-46/97 [2000] ECR II-2125.

  31. 31.

    Article 107(1) TFEU defines State aid as “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favoring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods …, in so far as it affects trade between Member States”.

  32. 32.

    Article 106(2) TFEU stipulates that… “Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest … shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community”.

  33. 33.

    See Case 240/83 [1985] ECR 531; Case C-53/00, judgment of 22 November 2001; Case C-280/00, judgment of 24 July 2003.

Selected Bibliography

  • Bachtler J, Turok I (eds) (1997) Coherence of EU regional policy: contrasting perspectives on the structural funds. European Studies Association, Kingsley Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (1998a) The liberalisation of public procurement in the European Union and its effects on the common market. Ashgate-Dartmouth, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (1998b) Public procurement as an instrument of industrial policy in the European Union, Chap. 7. In: Lawton T (ed) Industrial policy and competitiveness in Europe. McMillan Publishers, Kansas City

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (2003, September) La notion et les attributions d’organisme de droit public comme pouvoirs adjudicateurs dans le régime des marchés publics. Contrats Publics

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (2002) Recent case law relating to public procurement: a beacon for the integration of public markets. Common Market Law Rev 39:1025–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (2005) Public procurement and the internal market of the 21st century: economic exercise versus policy choice. In: P. Nebia and T. Tridimas (eds), EU law for the 21st century: rethinking the new legal order, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 290–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (2006) Public procurement: case law and regulation. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchinni P (1988) The European challenge: 1992. Wildwood House, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (1992) Statistical performance for keeping watch over public procurement. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (ed) (2003) The enlargement of the European Union. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (1988) The cost of non-Europe, basic findings, vol. 5, Part. A: the cost of non-Europe in public sector procurement. Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • European regional Policy (2007), The basic essentials, Office for official publications of the European Communities, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernadez-Martin JM, Stehmann O (1991) Product market integration versus regional cohesion in the community. Eur Law Rev 16:216–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Funck B, Pizzati L (eds) (2003) European integration, regional policy, and growth. The World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones RA (2001) The politics and economics of the European Union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brennan J (2006) The eastern enlargement of the European Union. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhove N (1999) Regional policy: a European approach. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Wosniak-Boyle JR (2006) Conditional leadership: the European Commission and regional policy. Lexington, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, The University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK

    Christopher Bovis

Authors
  1. Christopher Bovis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Bovis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. John Forster Building, Liverpool Jon Moores University, Mount Pleasant 98, Liverpool, L3 5UZ, United Kingdom

    Carlo Panara

  2. , Faculteit recht en criminologie, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussel, 1050, Belgium

    Alexander De Becker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bovis, C. (2010). Chapter 4 The Role and Function of Structural and Cohesion Funds and the Interaction of the EU Regional Policy with the Internal Market Policies. In: Panara, C., De Becker, A. (eds) The Role of the Regions in EU Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11903-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation