WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Austria's obligation to pay back 800 000 in agricultural aid

On Wednesday, 5 July 2000, the Commission announced that Austria must pay back to the European Union 800 000 in agricultural aid. The reason given for this measure was the failure to impose penalties in 1996 following shortcomings in the tagging of male bovine animals. According to the Commission, Agrarmarkt Austria had been negligent in carrying out checks. Only 40 % of the ear-tags issued had been recorded in the database.

How did the Commission obtain this data? Did Commission officials themselves carry out spot checks, or was the data compiled by national agencies?

What shortcomings did these checks bring to light? What form did the breach of Community rules take?

Were shortcomings discovered in the tagging of other animals?

If so, was Community aid paid back in those cases as well?

Which other Member States are being required to pay back aid as a result of shortcomings in the tagging of animals? How much is each Member State being required to pay back and on what grounds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

In order to ensure that expenditure declared by the Member States has been made in compliance with the applicable legislation, the Commission carries out on the spot enquiries. These visits are conducted by Commission officials in all Member States according to a risk based plan.

The financial correction is based on evidence gathered during one of these visits and is complemented by information supplied by the Member State following specific questions raised by the Commission officials.

The on-the-spot enquiries in relation to the bovine premia in Austria revealed the absence of formalised risk analysis, inadequate control and late administrative control procedures. The main problem concerned the failure to apply legislative sanctions in respect of inadequate identification and registration (I&R) of male bovines. These deficiencies constitute non-compliance with the requirements set out in Articles 6(4), 6(1) and 10 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes(1), and Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals(2) as applicable for marketing years 1995 and 1996.

The non-compliance with I&R requirements was also established for female bovines. However, taking into account the lower financial risk this weakness represented to the Fund, no correction was proposed.

The non-compliance with I&R requirements is no reason in itself to apply financial corrections to expenditure declared under the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF). Corrections are proposed when Member States do not implement appropriate control systems or fail to apply regulatory sanctions, if inspectors establish on the spot that I&R requirements are not complied with, or if inspectors do not sufficiently check that I&R-requirements are met.

The clearance of accounts procedure under Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(3) (repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999(4) as from 1 January 2000) foresees this type of clearance decision on an ongoing basis. Financial corrections decided by the Commission

and the Member States concerned are diverse and numerous. However, the amounts of corrections made to expenditure declared by Member States and the reasons for each correction, are indicated in the different clearance decisions published in the Official journal, and are covered in more detail in a summary report accompanying each decision.

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(3) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970.

(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.