WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2359/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Payments to flax farmers
Date: 1998-07-27
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, flax, hemp, marketing year, processing industry, producer organisation, terms for aid

C 118/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Given that it is a stated policy of the EU to promote this globally competitive company, would the
Commission adopt a favourable approach under competition law in the event of a consortium being put
together for other European companies to buy into PFE?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission considers that Polygram Filmed Entertainment (PFE) has played a vital role in the recent
revival of the European film industry. Its position as a globally competitive player is fully consistent with
the aims of the Community(cid:146)s audiovisual policy. This is particularly true of PFE(cid:146)s distribution-led
production strategy. For more details on the Commission(cid:146)s latest strategic thinking, the Honourable
Member is referred to the Commission(cid:146)s recent communication to the Parliament and the Council entitled
(cid:145)Audiovisual policy: next steps(cid:146) (1).

PFE has received support from the MEDIA II programme, for example in the framework of the (cid:145)Fastlane(cid:146)
training programme for producers. Article 3 of Council Decision 95/563/EC (2), on which the develop-
ment and distribution strand of the MEDIA II programme is based, stipulates that (cid:145)the businesses
benefiting from the programme must be in the possession and continue to be in possession, whether
directly or by majority participation, of the Member States and/or of nationals from Member States(cid:146).
Under this Article therefore, businesses must be, and continue to be, at least majority European-owned to
be eligible for support.

Of course any deal would have to be submitted for clearance to the Commission which will examine it in
the application of competition rules.

(1) COM(98) 446.
(2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(1999/C 118/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Payments to flax farmers

Will the Commission explain why monies owed to arable farmers are being paid twelve months in arrears?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Community legislation on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp has introduced new
requirements for granting aid for fibre flax from the 1998/99 marketing year.

To ensure that aid cannot be paid for areas that are not actually under cultivation, the rules now stipulate as
a requirement for granting the aid that a contract must be signed between producer and primary processor,
an undertaking must be given to process the flax, primary processors must be approved and a minimum
yield of flax straw must be attained.

The requirement to carry out the actual processing of flax straw from areas covered by contracts or
undertakings to process does indeed lay down that this should take place at most 12 months after the end of
the marketing year. However, operators are free to comply with this requirement sooner than that in order
to receive the aid in question. Moreover, potential aid recipients may receive a payment before processing
provided that they lodge a security with the competent authorities of the Member State.