WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/99 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. Dutch fisheries and the Multiannual Guidance Programme (MGP).
Date: 1999-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Netherlands, common fisheries policy, infringement of EU law

C 203 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

concerned have a base, given that consumers do not generally shop outside their own area, and this will
complicate the analysis of the effects on all those markets considerably.

If the Commission receives a notification for the purposes of Regulation 4064/89 (1), will it deem itself
competent in the matter, or does it take the view that it should refer the notified concentration to the
competent authorities of the Member States?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

Answer to written question by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
enables a Member State, within three weeks of the date of receipt of the notification, to request that the
operation notified should be referred to it for examination. In the case referred to by the Honourable
Members, the possibility that the Spanish and French competition authorities might request such a referral
was recently raised, in particular by the press in these two Member States. If they did so, it would not be
the first time that the Spanish competition authorities requested such referral. On 17 August 1999, the
Commission referred case IV M-1555 Heineke v Cruzcampo to the Spanish authorities.

Two conditions governing referral are laid down in Article 9(2) of the Regulation: (a) the merger must
threaten to create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be
significantly impeded on a market within that Member State, which presents all the characteristics of a
distinct market; and (b) the merger affects competition on a market within that Member State which
presents all the characteristics of a distinct market and which does not constitute a substantial part of the
common market.

The Commission must take a decision to refer or not to refer within six weeks from the date of
notification (instead of the usual period of one month), and decide whether it will itself deal with the
case in order to maintain or restore effective competition on the relevant market or whether it will refer
the entire case or part of it to the authorities of the Member States concerned. If the case is referred by the
Commission, the Regulation requires the competition authorities in the Member States to publish a report
or announce their conclusions within a period of no more than four months after the Commission referral.

Despite public reactions by certain Governments, so far no Member State has lodged a request for a
referral regarding the proposed take-over of Promodes by Carrefour.

(2000/C 203 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/99

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Dutch fisheries and the Multiannual Guidance Programme (MGP)

1.
A number of Member States have failed to comply with the objectives of the MGP. Only the
Netherlands has been declared to be at fault. To what extent have the Member States failed to comply with
the objectives? Why has only the Netherlands been declared to be at fault?

2.
The objectives for each Member State under the MGP are based on the information on the size of the
fleet from the Community(cid:146)s fleet register. The Court of Auditors has repeatedly drawn attention to the
inadequacies of this register: it contains a lot of wrong information. How does the Commission intend to
respond to the Court(cid:146)s criticism? Is the Commission prepared to redefine the objectives on the basis of
reliable information?

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/41

If countries adhere to the total allowable catch (TAC) and the quota,

is it right for the fleet to
3.
undergo radical downsizing under the MGP or for it to have so few days at sea that the quota cannot be
fished? What are the arguments for adhering to the MGP structural programme?

4. Why are the reduction percentages in the MGP fixed for five years while the TAC can vary
considerably from year to year? Is it possible to bring the reduction percentages in line with the TACs
during the life of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

1.
The Commission reports annually to the Council and Parliament on changes in the fishing effort in
various segments of the fishing fleets of the Member States as compared with the original, intermediate
and final aims of the multiannual guidance programmes (MGP). The last report concerns 1997 (1) and
mentions in particular the delay in certain Member States. The Commission is currently preparing the
annual report for 1998.

The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against the Netherlands concerning implementa-
tion of its MGP. On that occasion the Commission looked at how all the other Member States were
honouring their obligations when implementing the MGP.

2.
Data in the Community register of Community fishing vessels are governed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2090/98 of 30 September 1998 (2) which makes the Member States responsible for
the collection of the data and immediate transmission in electronic form to the Commission. The data in
the register cover the Community fleet and all changes to it since 1 January 1989.

its reliability has been improved considerably. Member States recently
Since the register was set up,
checked their national registers when implementing MGP IV (1 January 1997), following new segmenta-
tion of the fleet, the inventory of fishing gear or the implementation of fishing effort arrangements.
A programme of meetings between Member States is in hand in order to improve further the quality of
the data in the register.

The Commission is willing to judge each case where the original or final aims of earlier MGP have changed
on the basis of new data in the light of this additional information and the register as a whole.

3.
The Commission must stress that total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas determine the annual
limits on the volumes of fish stocks which may be caught while MGP determine limits on fishing effort.
These are complementary ways of managing fisheries and their objectives require separate compliance, as
laid down in Articles 4, 8 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (3).

4.
The annual nature of catch limits (TACs and quotas) is not incompatible with the multiannual nature
of the MGP since TACs are fixed on the basis of the latest scientific information on the state of stocks
while the measures to reduce the capacity of the fleet (MGP) are structural measures which form part of
the strategy of the fishing enterprises. The Commission is considering changes in the rules to align the
time periods covered by the two schemes more closely.

Because fishing is still a very opportunist activity which moves from one fishing ground to another and
because many commercial fisheries cover a number of species, it is difficult to adjust the objectives of the
MGP precisely to fluctuations in fish stocks using the current rules. However, this possibility does exist in
the provisions concerning the MGP IV whose mid-term review is imminent.

(1) COM(1999) 175 final.
(2) OJ L 266, 1.10.1998.
(3) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.