EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/284

(2004/C 88 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1181/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

In my Written Question P-0850/04 (1) I put various questions to the Commission which have not received an adequate answer. The Commission has confined itself to clarifying that the shortcomings in checks on the quality of end products concerned the marketing year 1997/98 and that the irregular grant of supplementary quotas concerned the marketing years 1998/99 to 2000/01. The Commission has provided information on the volume of the supplementary quotas granted, but not on the volume of those granted improperly, even though it is the latter which must have given rise to the financial correction. The Commission further states that in principle, all the undertakings which acquired a higher number of raw materials at the minimum price than the quota allocated at the start of the marketing year benefited from the supplementary quotas and that, in principle, all the undertakings which indicated that they were prepared to conclude contracts for the supplementary amounts were eligible for the supplementary quotas. All this does not explain the nature of the irregularities which gave rise to the financial correction, nor their impact in terms of possible distortions of competition.

Given that the questions raised in Written Question P-0850/04 have not been answered, I am now resubmitting them:

1. What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing years did such shortcomings occur?

2. What irregularities have given rise to the correction?

3. In what marketing years did they occur?

4. What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year?

5. To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

6. How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We refer to the Summary Report annexed to our first reply (2). This sets out our findings in detail and the grounds of the financial correction.

In reply to the Honourable Member's questions:

1. The shortcomings in quality control lay in the fact that the Spanish authorities' administrative practices were such that processors could probably tell at the beginning of the year whether or not they might be checked. See points B.2.2.1.2 and B.2.2.3.2. of the Summary Report annexed to our first reply and the first point of the reply itself (the marketing years in question were those up to 2000-2001).

2. On assignment of supplementary quotas, the basic fact is not the irregularities themselves but that the quota management system set up by the Spanish authorities did not comply with the Community legislation – see Summary Report points B.2.2.1.1., B.2.2.3.1. and B.2.2.5.(second paragraph).

3. These failings in the quota management system were found by us to relate to the 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 marketing years. See the first point of our first reply.

4. The actual supplementary quotas improperly granted amounted to 35 027 tonnes (1998-1999), 14 341 tonnes (1999-2000), and 21 224 tonnes (2000-2001).

5. Our investigation covered the inspection system in general but not the enterprises individually. The financial correction we decided on was accordingly imposed on the totality of the quotas granted improperly, i.e. in a way that did not conform with the Community rules, no reference being made to individual enterprises. The third point of our first reply gives additional information.

6. Point 5 replies to this question. The fourth point of our first reply gives additional information.

(1) See page 237.

(2) See reply No AGR08472 of 24.3.2004.