WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/99 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Milk quota situation.
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, agricultural quota, common agricultural policy, competence of the Member States, infringement procedure (EU), milk

C 203 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Dutch government(cid:146)s assessment of European development aid

(22 September 1999)

Is the Commission aware of the very critical report on the quality of European aid which has been
presented by the Dutch government to the Dutch parliament?

Were the Dutch government and the Commission in contact prior to the publication of the report?

Does the Commission broadly agree with the criticism made in the report? If so, which specific criticisms
does it agree with, and which does it consider irrelevant or inappropriate?

What, in general, is the Commission(cid:146)s response to this report?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The Commission noted with interest the existence of the Dutch report on the quality of European aid,
which was first brought to its attention by the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question. Although the
Commission did not have any direct contact with the Dutch government on this particular report, there
has been a long-standing discussion with Member States on the improvements to be made to European
development aid, following four global evaluations that were carried out earlier this year. At its May 1999
meeting, the Development Council adopted a set of conclusions that suggested areas for improvement in
the development aid managed by the Commission. These conclusions were the result of a constructive
collaboration between the Council and the Commission.

The Commission does broadly concur with the content of the report and is pleased to note that the Dutch
government recognises the efforts that it is making to improve the management of development aid. It has
already recognised that there are certain areas where its performance needs to be improved. Proposals to
introduce improvements have either already been presented to the Council and Parliament, or are currently
being developed, either within the context of the present regulations and the LomØ Convention, or in the
framework of the negotiations that are on-going on the successor Convention to the LomØ Convention
and the new regulations for MEDA and South Africa. The Commission is pleased to note that the Dutch
government considers that there are grounds for optimism for the future, in terms of constructive co-
operation and positive results.

The Commission is preparing an action plan of measures to respond to the recommendations of the
various evaluation reports, as well as the follow-up proposed in the Council conclusions on evaluation,
including a strategic framework for all Community development policy. This action plan will be
communicated to the Parliament after its adoption by the Commission.

(2000/C 203 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/99

by Emilia M(cid:252)ller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Milk quota situation

1.

Do uniform rules regarding milk quotas always apply to all Member States?

Is the principle of equal treatment of Member States and of the farmers concerned applied in the case

2.
of milk quotas?

3.

Do inaccuracies occur in the administration of quotas in many countries?

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/17

4.

Is it always the relevant producer himself who has to pay the superlevy if the quota is exceeded?

Does the Commission have any information to suggest that Italy has paid LIT 3 631 billion in

5.
superlevy from its State budget?

6.

If any measures (infringement proceedings) have been taken, what stage have they reached?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

Community legislation on milk quotas applies to all the Member States. In a number of respects this
1.
legislation permits choices regarding the specific implementing rules so that the Member States can take
account of their specific conditions of production.

2.

3.

Yes.

Yes, but not on a scale which compromises the operation of the arrangement.

Yes, but in the case of deliveries collection is the responsibility of the dairy to which the producer

4.
delivers.

5.
The Commission has collected from Italy the amounts due as a result of the quotas being exceeded.
Following the work of (cid:145)commissione di garanzia quote latte(cid:146) (milk quota guarantee commission) which
examined the reference quantities of all the producers individually and reported in February 1999, in July
the Italian administration undertook to recover those amounts from the debtors. The Commission is
awaiting details of this recovery. However, the settlement of any individual disputes is a matter for the
Italian courts.

6.
An infringement procedure concerning the failure by Italy to make a definitive recovery of the
supplementary levy from producers who exceeded their quotas is still in progress. However, in view of the
developments referred to in the previous paragraph since a reasoned opinion was issued, the Commission
does not consider it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice at this stage. Naturally, it reserves
the right to do so if no satisfactory conclusion is reached soon.

(2000/C 203 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef

The French trade union Coordination paysanne europØenne has organised a number of peaceful demon-
strations outside the French branches of the US firm Macdonald(cid:146)s to protest against the US Administra-
tion(cid:146)s measures, which heavily tax a number of European products because the Union, quite rightly, refuses
to import American beef produced in a way which does not comply with public health requirements in
European Union countries.

Does the Commission not consider that

1.
the symbolic acts by the French trade union (cid:129) the
distribution of products hit by the US measures, such as Roquefort and foie gras, outside the symbol of
the antithesis of European culinary culture (cid:129) Macdonald(cid:146)s (cid:129) are worthy of support?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to oppose the orders of the WTO (cid:129) an organisation
under US control (cid:129) concerning imports of foodstuffs, in this specific case beef treated with substances
harmful to human health?