WRITTEN QUESTION No. 889/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE , Riccardo GAROSCI to the Council. Changes made by Regulation No 272/ 96 setting export refunds on products processed from fruit and vegetables
Date: 1996-04-19
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament, GAROSCI
Subjects: EC Regulation, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment, export licence, export policy, export refund, fruit product, vegetable product













EUR-Lex - 91996E0889 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0889

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 889/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE , Riccardo GAROSCI to the Council. Changes made by Regulation No 272/ 96 setting export refunds on products processed from fruit and vegetables  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0043 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Council (19 April 1996)Subject: Changes made by Regulation No 272/96 setting export refunds on products processed from fruit and vegetablesFollowing objections raised by third countries concerning the impact on international trade of export refunds introduced in Regulation No 3290/94 ((OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p.105)) of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round, the European Community undertook to reduce gradually the level of support for the export of agricultural products.Regulation No 272/96 ((OJ L 36, 14.2.1996, p.15)) amended the annex to Regulation No 1430/95 ((OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p.32)) by laying down new parameters for export refunds. The new annex makes a distinction between two periods:- the first covers licences issued and applications submitted between 25 October 1995 and 22 February 1996, to which the rates already laid down in the original Regulation No 1430/95 apply;- the second covers licenses issued between March 1996 and June 1996, and applications submitted between 23 February 1996 and 21 June 1996, to which the new rates laid down in Regulation No 272/96 apply.The new rules penalize manufacturers who have drawn up contracts and made commitments on the basis of the parameters previously laid down.In order to remedy this situation of uncertainty in which the market and the firms concerned find themselves, it is requested that:1. the Italian Government should assess the advisability of applying to the Court of Justice for the annulment (pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty) of Regulation No 272/96;2. before the end of Italy's six-month presidency of the European Union all possible measures should be adopted to prevent any legislative provisions from further worsening the situation.Reply (16 July 1996)Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 on the implementation of the agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations includes an Annex XIV on processed fruit and vegetables. That Annex replaces Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 establishing the CMO in processed fruit and vegetables: following the Uruguay Round the system for the grant of refunds was amended, inter alia, to make payment of refunds subject to possession of an export licence. The European Parliament delivered an Opinion on the Regulation on 16 December 1994.Annex XIV to the Regulation stipulates that the term of validity of licences and other detailed rules are to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 426/86, i.e. by a type II(a) Committee.This means that responsibility for setting export refunds for processed fruit and vegetables lies with the Commission, not the Council. The same applies to the fixing of the coefficients for these refunds.Under its powers, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 272/96 amending Commission Regulation No 1430/95 setting export refunds and coefficients for fruit and vegetables.Neither the Council nor the Government of any Member State can therefore intervene directly in the process. At most, the Commission may, at the request of the Member States, defer its decision for one month if it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee. In the case which concerns us here, the decision was adopted after such a one-month delay as the Committee failed to deliver an opinion within the time-limit laid down by its Chairman.