Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents
CM(2002)10 Addendum 4 Corrigendum 28 March 2002
——————————————
785 Meeting, 27 February 2002
10 Legal questions
10.1 Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR)
28th meeting, Strasbourg, 10-12 December 2001
Report on the progress in implementation of the European outline Convention on transfrontier co-operation between territorial communities or authorities
——————————————
Please replace page 58 (this page corresponds to page 57 in the French version) of document CM(2002)10 Addendum 4 with the page hereafter.
The corrections appear with a grey background.
4) Most local authorities believe that transfrontier co-operation is a way of developing relations with neighbouring countries. None of those questioned mentioned any unresolved issues.
5) Only the aforementioned "TRAKKENT" association referred to problems with visas and described the different language and administrative structures as an obstacle to transfrontier co-operation.
6) No transfrontier agreements have been concluded at local and regional levels.
7) Apart from "TRAKKENT", none of the authorities questioned mentioned any practical obstacles to co-operation.
8) The authorities suggest that they have no difficulty in meeting with central authorities and that they are free to participate in intergovernmental transfrontier co-operation commissions.
9) The authorities questioned said they needed more information about these transfrontier bodies before they could evaluate their activities.
10) The objectives laid down by the European Commission could be achieved through more intensive co-operation.
11) All the local and regional authorities said they received no Community funding to finance their transfrontier co-operation projects.
12) The local and regional authorities all know about the Madrid Convention and the model agreements, but would like to receive information more regularly.
13) The local and regional authorities have heard about the Council of Europe's activities in central and eastern Europe. Although they are not involved at present, they would like more information on the subject.
14) Some authorities would like to receive more Council of Europe funding, while others wish the legal framework could be completed and that administrative systems could be more decentralised.
United Kingdom 26
1) As far as we are aware there are no legal or administrative obstacles preventing the United Kingdom (UK) from implementing the principles of the outline Convention.
2) In the UK, for geographical reasons (limited land boundaries with other countries), inter-state agreements have been limited. There are examples however, such as the International fund for Ireland Wider Horizons Programme, whose remit is contained in statute in both the UK and Ireland (I). We are not aware of any major problems in the implementation of inter-state agreements although in the context of Northern Ireland/Ireland there can be discrepancies in national legislation between NI and I.