Sittings · Document

DRAFT REPORT (COM(2018)0373 – C80228/2018 – 2018/0198(COD)) 2018-09-25

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context

Committee on Regional Development · Rapporteur: Matthijs van Miltenburg

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

Committee on Regional Development

2018/0198(COD)

25.9.2018

***I

DRAFT REPORT

PR_COD_1amCom

Symbols for procedures

* Consultation procedure

*** Consent procedure

***I Ordinary legislative procedure (first reading)

***II Ordinary legislative procedure (second reading)

***III Ordinary legislative procedure (third reading)

(The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.)

Amendments to a draft act

Amendments by Parliament set out in two columns

Deletions are indicated in bold italics in the left-hand column. Replacements are indicated in bold italics in both columns. New text is indicated in bold italics in the right-hand column.

The first and second lines of the header of each amendment identify the relevant part of the draft act under consideration. If an amendment pertains to an existing act that the draft act is seeking to amend, the amendment heading includes a third line identifying the existing act and a fourth line identifying the provision in that act that Parliament wishes to amend.

Amendments by Parliament in the form of a consolidated text

New text is highlighted in bold italics. Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text in bold italics and by deleting or striking out the text that has been replaced.

By way of exception, purely technical changes made by the drafting departments in preparing the final text are not highlighted.

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context

(COM(2018)0373 – C80228/2018 – 2018/0198(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0373),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and in particular third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C80228/2018),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 September 2018,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of ... ,

– having regard to the written and reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Portuguese Parliament and Swedish Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A80000/2018),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) In full respect of the constitutional and institutional set-up of the Member States, the use of the Mechanism should be voluntary with regard to those border regions of a given Member State where another effective mechanism exists or could be set up with the neighbouring Member State. It should consist of two measures: the signature and the conclusion of a European Cross-Border Commitment (the 'Commitment') or the signature of a European Cross-Border Statement (the 'Statement').

(9) In full respect of the constitutional and institutional set-up of the Member States, the use of the Mechanism should be voluntary. It should consist of two measures: the signature and the conclusion of a European Cross-Border Commitment (the 'Commitment') or the signature of a European Cross-Border Statement (the 'Statement').

Or. en

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) In order to coordinate the tasks of different authorities which in some Member States will include national and regional legislative bodies, within a given Member States and between those of one or more neighbouring Member States, each Member State which opts for the Mechanism should be obliged to set up a national and, where applicable, regional Cross-border Coordination Points and define their tasks and competencies during the different steps of the Mechanism covering initiation, conclusion, implementation and monitoring of Commitments and Statements.

(13) In order to coordinate the tasks of different authorities which in some Member States will include national and regional legislative bodies, within a given Member States and between those of one or more neighbouring Member States, each Member State should be obliged to set up a national and, where appropriate, regional Cross-border Coordination Points and define their tasks and competencies during the different steps of the Mechanism covering initiation, conclusion, implementation and monitoring of Commitments and Statements.

Or. en

Justification

The obligation to set up National Cross-border Coordination Points is imposed on all MS's.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) In order to establish a database according to Article 8,implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down rules on its running, on the protection of data and the model to be used when information on the implementation and on the use of the Mechanism is submitted by Cross-border Coordination Points. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the advisory procedure under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council28 . For practical and coordination purposes, the ‘Coordination Committee for the European Structural and Investment Funds’ should be the committee competent for the procedure of adoption of implementing acts.

(24) In order to establish a database according to Article 7, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down rules on its running, on the protection of data and the model to be used when information on the implementation and on the use of the Mechanism is submitted by Cross-border Coordination Points. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the advisory procedure under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council28 . For practical and coordination purposes, the ‘Coordination Committee for the European Structural and Investment Funds’ should be the committee competent for the procedure of adoption of implementing acts.

__________________

28 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

Or. en

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) The national implementing rules are to specify which border regions of a given Member State are covered by the Commitment or the Statement. Consequently, the Commission will be in a position to assess whether for the border which is not mentioned the Member State has opted for a different mechanism.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) TEU, the content and form of Union action should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The recourse to the specific Mechanism set up under this Regulation is voluntary. Where a Member State decides, on a specific border with one or more neighbouring Member States, to continue to resolve legal obstacles in a specific cross-border region under the effective mechanisms it has set up at national level or which it has set up formally or informally, together with one or more neighbouring Member States, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Likewise, where a Member State decides, on a specific border with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective mechanism set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States, provided that mechanism allows for accession, again, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. This Regulation does therefore not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives for those cross-border regions, for which Member States have no efficient mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles in place,

(28) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) TEU, the content and form of Union action should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The recourse to the specific Mechanism set up under this Regulation to resolve legal obstacles in cross-border regions is voluntary. Where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to continue to resolve legal obstacles in a specific cross-border region under the effective mechanisms it has set up at national level or which it has set up formally or informally, together with one or more neighbouring Member States, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Likewise, where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective mechanism set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States, provided that mechanism allows for accession, again, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Finally, where a Member State decides together with one or more neighbouring Member States, to set up formally or informally a new effective mechanism to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. This Regulation does therefore not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives for those cross-border regions, for which Member States have no efficient mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles in place.

Or. en

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Regulation sets up a mechanism to allow for the application in one Member State, with regard to a cross-border region, of the legal provisions from another Member State, where the application of the legal provisions of the former would constitute a legal obstacle hampering the implementation of a joint Project ('the Mechanism').

1. This Regulation sets up a voluntary mechanism to allow for the application in one Member State, with regard to a single joint project in a cross-border region, of the legal provisions from another Member State, where the application of the legal provisions of the former would constitute a legal obstacle hampering the implementation of a joint Project ('the Mechanism').

Or. en

Justification

The wording in the proposal raises doubts about the interpretation whether a member state may opt for the ECBM for each single "joint project" or is obliged to decide on the application of the mechanism for all possible "joint projects" along a border. The rapporteur wants to avoid that MS’s that currently have no existing mechanisms, have no other choice then to choose for the ECBM. The application of the ECBM should be on a voluntary basis based on a case-by-case assessment of the MS.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member State shall either opt for the Mechanism or opt for existing ways to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions on a specific border with one or more neighbouring Member States.

1. Member States may either opt for the Mechanism or opt for existing ways to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions with one or more neighbouring Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. A Member State may also decide, with regard to a specific border with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective way set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States.

2. A Member State may also decide, with regard to a joint project in cross-border regions, with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective way set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. A Member State may also decide together with one or more neighbouring Member States to set up formally or informally a new effective mechanism to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions.

Or. en

Justification

Member States may opt for the mechanism but could also choose to join existing mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles, or even to create new mechanisms to do so.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Where a Member State opts for the Mechanism, it shall establish one or more Cross-border Coordination Points in one of the following ways:

1. Each Member State shall establish one or more Cross-border Coordination Points in one of the following ways:

Or. en

Justification

In the proposal of the rapporteur, the CBCPs will be key in order to assess if and how to resolve legal obstacles. The rapporteur therefore proposes the mandatory setting-up of CBCPs in each MS. Since the application of the ECBM will be triggered on a voluntary basis, it is up to the MS’s to decide on how substantial the administrative capacity of these CBCPs has to be.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) liaise, where they exist, with the Cross-border Coordination Points in the neighbouring Member State or States and with the Cross-border Coordination Points in other territorial entities with legislative powers of its own Member State or another Member State;

(d) liaise with the Cross-border Coordination Points in the neighbouring Member State or States and with the Cross-border Coordination Points in other territorial entities with legislative powers of its own Member State or another Member State;

Or. en

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) upon request from a given competent committing authority located in another Member State without its own Cross-border Coordination point, perform the preliminary analysis of an initiative document;

(c) upon request from a given competent committing authority located in another Member State, perform the preliminary analysis of an initiative document;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point shall analyse the initiative document. It shall liaise with all competent committing authorities and with the national or, where relevant, other regional Cross-border Coordination Points in the committing Member State and with the national Cross-border Coordination Point in the transferring Member State.

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall analyse the initiative document. It shall liaise with all competent committing authorities and with the national or, where relevant, other regional Cross-border Coordination Points in the committing Member State and with the national Cross-border Coordination Point in the transferring Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Within three months after receipt of the initiative document the competent Cross-border Coordination Point shall take, one or more of the following actions, to be transmitted to the initiator in writing:

2. Within six months after receipt of the initiative document the competent Cross-border Coordination Point shall take, one or more of the following actions, to be transmitted to the initiator in writing:

Or. en

Justification

The assessment of the initiative document may be complicated and more time consuming than the proposed three months, especially taking into account summer and/or holiday periods.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(fa) redirect the initiator to opt for an existing mechanism as referred to in Article 4(2) to resolve the legal obstacle hampering the implementation of the joint project

Or. en

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Upon receipt of an initiative document, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall also carry out the tasks listed in Article 10(2) and may send its preliminary reaction to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State.

Within three months of receipt of an initiative document, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall send its preliminary reaction to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State.

Or. en

Justification

Your rapporteur is of the opinion that preparing a draft commitment or statement as described in article 13 can only happen in good cooperation between committing and transferring Member States. In order to have input from the transferring Member State (who is more familiar with its own legal provisions that might transfer to the committing Member State) he changes this article to oblige the transferring Member State to send their preliminary reaction to the analysis of the initiative document.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Where the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State requests a revised initiative document or additional specific information, it shall analyse the revised initiative document or the additional specific information or both and take, within three months after receipt thereof, the actions as if the initiative document was submitted for the first time.

1. Where the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State requests a revised initiative document or additional specific information, it shall analyse the revised initiative document or the additional specific information or both and take, within six months after receipt thereof, the actions as if the initiative document was submitted for the first time.

Or. en

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State considers that the revised initiative document is still not prepared in accordance with Article 10 or that the additional specific information is still not sufficient, it shall, within three months after receipt of the revised initiative document, inform the initiator in writing about its decision to end the procedure. This decision shall be duly justified.

2. Where the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State considers that the revised initiative document is still not prepared in accordance with Article 10 or that the additional specific information is still not sufficient, it shall, within six months after receipt of the revised initiative document, inform the initiator in writing about its decision to end the procedure. This decision shall be duly justified.

Or. en

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Cross-border Coordination Point or the competent committing authority of the committing Member State shall draw up a draft Commitment or a draft Statement in accordance with Article 14, based on the initiative document and its preliminary analysis thereof as well the preliminary reaction of the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State as referred to in Article 11.

Or. en

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) within a maximum of three months after having transmitted information under Article 10(2) or Article 12(1) and (2);

(a) within a maximum of six months after having transmitted information under Article 10(2) or Article 12(1) and (2);

Or. en

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall examine the draft Commitment or draft Statement received pursuant to Article 15 and, within a maximum of three months after receipt of the draft and after consulting the competent transferring authorities, take one or more of the following actions:

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall examine the draft Commitment or draft Statement received pursuant to Article 15 and, within a maximum of six months after receipt of the draft and after consulting the competent transferring authorities, take one or more of the following actions:

Or. en

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In Member States where the competent transferring authority shall sign a Commitment or Statement, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall send, in accordance with points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, the two original copies signed by the competent transferring authority.

2. In Member States where the competent transferring authority shall sign a Commitment or Statement, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State shall send, in accordance with points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, one of the two original copies signed by the competent transferring authority to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall examine the reply transmitted by the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State and take, within a maximum of one month after its receipt one or more of the following actions, to be transmitted to the competent transferring authority in writing:

1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall examine the reply transmitted by the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State and take, within a maximum of three months after its receipt one or more of the following actions, to be transmitted to the competent transferring authority in writing:

Or. en

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) in the case of point (a) of paragraph 2, finalise the Commitment or the Statement, sign two original copies and send one back to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State for signature;

(a) in the case of point (a) of Article 16(1), finalise the Commitment or the Statement, sign two original copies and send one back to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State for signature;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) in the case of point (b) of paragraph 2, amend the Commitment or the Statement as regards the information in the draft Commitment or the draft Statement covered by points (f) and (h) of Article 14(1) accordingly, finalise the Commitment or Statement, sign two original copies and send one back to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State for signature;

(b) in the case of point (b) of Article 16(1), amend the Commitment or the Statement as regards the information in the draft Commitment or the draft Statement covered by points (f) and (h) of Article 14(1) accordingly, finalise the Commitment or Statement, sign two original copies and send one back to the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State for signature;

Or. en

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) in the case of point (c) of paragraph 2, inform the initiator and the Commission, while adding the justification as set out by the competent transferring authority;

(c) in the case of point (c) of Article 16(1), inform the initiator and the Commission, while adding the justification as set out by the competent transferring authority;

Or. en

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) in the case of point (d) of paragraph 2, consider the amendments and either proceed as under point (b) of this paragraph or relaunch a second procedure under Article 9 setting out why some or all of the amendments could not be accepted by the competent committing authority.

(d) in the case of point (d) of Article 16(1), consider the amendments and either proceed as under point (b) of this paragraph or proceed as under point (c) of this paragraph setting out why some or all of the amendments could not be accepted by the competent committing authority.

Or. en

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Upon receipt of the Commitment or the Statement, as also signed by the competent Cross-border Coordination Point or competent transferring authority in the cases of points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 or, where the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the transferring Member State has reacted positively under the second procedure of point (d) of paragraph 1, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall:

Or. en

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

By dd mm yyyy [i.e. the 1st of the month following the entry into force of this Regulation + five years; to be filled in by the Publication Office], the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions assessing the application of this Regulation based on indicators on its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, European added value and scope for simplification.

By dd mm yyyy [i.e. the 1st of the month following the entry into force of this Regulation + three years; to be filled in by the Publication Office], the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions assessing the application of this Regulation based on indicators on its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, European added value and scope for simplification.

Or. en

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Introduction

In the European Union, cross-border regions make up approximately 40% of the Union’s territory, while harbouring almost a third of its 512 million citizens. At the same time, border regions in Europe generally perform less well economically, have higher unemployment rates and have relatively underdeveloped infrastructure compared to regions that are more centrally located in the Member States. It has been estimated that if 20% of existing border obstacles would be removed, border regions would gain 2% in GDP, amounting to approximately 91 billion EUR per year in GDP. In their past, many border regions in Europe have been stages of war and conflict between countries.

For those reasons, The Lisbon Treaty in article 174 not only lists economic and social cohesion as its explicit objectives, but also territorial cohesion (with particular attention to cross-border regions). From that perspective, the proposal for a European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) should be seen as complementary to Interreg and European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation, EGTCs. The proposed ECBM aims to resolve cross-border obstacles of a legal or administrative nature, by applying for a common cross-border region, in a given Member State, the legal provisions from the neighbouring Member State for a specific joint project.

The European cross-border mechanism

Your rapporteur supports and welcomes the intention of the European Commission’s “proposal on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context” (European Cross-Border Mechanism, ECBM). The ECBM could become a tool in a general toolbox to promote effective cross-border cooperation and, as a result, improve the wealth and wellbeing of the inhabitants and their quality of life in the EU’s border regions.

Clarification is needed on a few issues, especially with regards to voluntariness and the scope of the ECBM, as well as the subsidiarity and proportionality of the proposal.

The proposal should aim to add a voluntary tool to the toolbox that Member States have at their disposal to boost cross-border cooperation. Member States should, always have the final say on whether or not to use the mechanism.

In conjunction with this emphasis, it is necessary that Member States are able to choose whether to use the ECBM or an existing mechanism for each individual joint project, on a case-by-case basis. If Member States would have to make such a choice for a total border at once, those that do not currently have existing mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles in a cross-border context, would virtually be obliged to use the ECBM. This undermines the voluntary nature of the proposal.

With the proposed changes, any issues related to proportionality, and subsidiarity are appropriately dealt with. The ECBM becomes a voluntary tool and can be used in an ‘à-la-carte fashion’, where Member States choose every time they have identified a legal obstacle in a cross-border context, whether to use an existing mechanism, set up a new mechanism, or use the ECBM. Member States may also decline to trigger any mechanism to resolve a legal or administrative obstacle, for justified reasons. Triggering the ECBM and allowing one Member State to apply their legal provisions in another Member State asks for serious scrutiny by all parties involved so the deadlines proposed by the Commission might have been too tight, so certain deadlines have been amended.

Finally, the thematic scope of the proposal is kept intact as much as possible. After having strengthened the voluntary basis of the proposal in combination with changing the way Member States choose between the mechanism and existing mechanisms, the scope can remain broad so as to ensure the practical application of the ECBM, for all potential future projects that could be hampered by legal or administrative obstacles in a cross-border region.

Your rapporteur believes that an effective application of the European Cross-border Mechanism can only be feasible if all Member States and all the competent authorities within the Member States embrace the opportunity to resolve legal and administrative obstacles by working together in the spirit of good cooperation and good neighbourship. The voluntary character of the ECBM will contribute to fully unleash the potential of the European border regions.