WRITTEN QUESTION P-2295/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Imports of hucho and hucho fry into Finland.
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, derogation from EU law, freshwater fish, import licence

C 203 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

In view of the (cid:145)difficulties(cid:146) raised by government bodies concerning (cid:145)properly documented(cid:146) expenditure can
the Commission say:

1. What criteria will it use to assess whether unpaid work or donations in kind have been properly

documented?

2. Has it sent to consumer organisations information (what is the document reference?) setting out the

criteria regarding properly documented unpaid work or donations in kind?

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Setting sound and transparent standards for the management of Community grants has been a priority of
the Commission from the very outset. A vade mecum was adopted by the Commission in 1998 (1) and is
applicable to all the grants in any policy area since 1 January 1999. This vade mecum provides the
Commission with a common framework for awarding and monitoring direct grants.

As a general rule, contributions in kind are not eligible costs, but are taken into account in calculating the
rate of Community co-financing. However, Decision No 283/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 25 January 1999 establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers,
lays down, in Article 6.2 that (cid:145)unpaid work or donation in kind, if properly documented, may be taken
into account, up to a level of 20 %, of total eligible costs, when assessing the organisations(cid:146) revenue and
costs.(cid:146)

The criteria for the evaluation of (cid:145)in kind expenditure(cid:146) are foreseen in the vade mecum. Article 6.1.5
stipulates that (cid:145)In particular, contributions in kind include:
immovable property whether in its
entirety or in part, durable capital goods, raw materials, unpaid charity work by a private individual or
corporate body. The following conditions must be met: the amount declared by the beneficiary as
contributions in kind must be valued either on the basis of objective factors or on the basis of official
scales laid down by an independent authority or by an outside independent professional; the cost of
private charity work must be valued in accordance with the national rules regarding the calculation of
hourly, daily or weekly labour costs, if such rules exist.(cid:146)

land,

This information was included as an annex to the application form which all proposers received. It was
the
also put on the Directorate general
Commission also organised,
in July 1999, a teleconference, during which the representatives of the
consumer organisations were able to ask questions to Commission officials about the year 2000 subsidy
exercise. Furthermore, it was announced during this teleconference that Commission staff specialised in the
financial aspects of grants were available to answer any questions. Their phone numbers were also
mentioned on the grant application form.

for health and consumer protection web site. Moreover,

(1)

http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/serv19/icon/documents/subventions/index.htm.

(2000/C 203 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2295/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Imports of hucho and hucho fry into Finland

Fish may be imported into Finland only from EU-authorised fish hatcheries. This authorisation covers
establishments which have closed systems, i.e. which do not come into contact with open waters so that
the risk of disease is reduced.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/163

The hucho is a freshwater fish, although under marine conditions it has a much higher growth potential;
this is why efforts are being made to import it into Finland. If reared in freshwater, fish must be kept in
open pond systems with water supplies from surface water, in order to obtain high quality products. If the
hucho seed fish are kept at a constant moderate temperature in groundwater the spawn is of less value. In
Germany and Austria these open systems for breeding hucho are regularly monitored by the health
inspectorates and tested for disease.

Is it possible to obtain a derogation for importing into Finland hucho or hucho fry which are not bred in
closed systems? What certificates or documentary evidence would be required?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The conditions for intra-Community trade in live fish for breeding purposes are laid down in Council
Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing
on the market of aquaculture animals and products (1). The purpose of this Directive is to prevent the
spreading of fish diseases during commercial transactions.

Under Directive 91/67/EEC, Finland has obtained the status of a disease free country with regard to
infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), two main diseases in
salmonid species. Any Member State wanting to export salmonid species to Finland must give the
guarantees laid down in Community legislation about the absence of these diseases. Since hucho is a
member of the salmonid family, any export of this species to a disease free country is subject to that
condition. No derogation to that principle is foreseen.

No specific Community import requirements for salmonids from third countries have been established.
Directive 91/67/EEC lays down that, under such conditions, Member States shall ensure that imports are
subject to conditions at least equivalent to those applying to the production and placing on the market of
Community products.

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991.

(2000/C 203 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2318/99

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Funding under the Leader + programme and adoption of Leader + final guidelines

While I appreciate the fact that the amount of Structural Funds available to Ireland for the period 2000-
2006 is lower than for the previous period, can the Commission justify the severe cuts it has made in a
model programme, such as Leader, which has proven its worth in fostering partnership, local ownership,
professionalism, social inclusion and the creation of jobs and local economic growth throughout Ireland?

When will the guidelines for the Leader+ programme be adopted in their final form and published?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

The Commission agrees that under Leader I and II many rural communities have been given the
opportunity to develop and put into practice integrated and innovative approaches to stimulate the
development of the local rural economy, achieving very positive results. In the Commission(cid:146)s view many of