WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, Court of Justice of the European Union, agreement (EU), complaint to the Commission, distributive trades, foreign national, labour law, right of establishment, service industry

C 225 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel decision did not call into question the Community aid scheme
under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying
Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from
marketing in the banana sector (1).

The Commission considers that support for Community producers is guaranteed by the current system of
compensatory aid, under which the amount fixed for each marketing year corresponds to the difference
between the flat-rate reference income (which was increased by 5 % in 1998 and up to 8 % from 1999)
and the average prices obtained during the year in which the bananas were marketed. Through providing
full compensation regardless of price trends on the Community market, the system thus ensures that
Community production is sold. The mechanism(cid:146)s effectiveness was confirmed during 1999, when banana
prices on the world market slumped and compensatory aid enabled all Community production to be sold
and producers(cid:146) income to be maintained.

The Commission takes the view that the compensatory aid scheme will absorb the impact, at production
level, of the proposed changes.

The financial statement presented with the Commission proposal estimated that its budgetary impact
would be to increase expenditure by € 77 million and revenue by € 30 million. The budgetary impact of
applying a system based solely on tariffs cannot be quantified at this stage.

African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers are already covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 856/
1999 of 22 April 1999 establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of
bananas (2).

The Commission will, in any event, assess whether this support (which has been proposed in the light of
the previous changes to the common market organisation) will be sufficient
to help traditional
ACP suppliers retain their place in the Community market.

(1) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for

the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons

1.
Has the Commission any knowledge of the number of nationals of Central and Eastern European
countries (CEECs) who have sought permission to establish themselves in the EU in the last two years in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Agreements between the CEE and the EU?

Has the Commission produced any guidance for nationals of Central and Eastern European countries

2.
seeking to establish themselves in accordance with these provisions?

Has the Commission produced any memoranda or advice notes for the national authorities of the

3.
Central and Eastern European countries concerning the right of establishment under these Agreements?

Has the Commission received any complaints from nationals of Central and Eastern European

4.
countries with regard to the exercise of the right of establishment under these Agreements?

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/135

Is the Commission aware of any references made by national courts to the European Court of Justice

5.
of matters arising from the right of establishment under these Agreements?

Does the Commission intend to take any action in the near future to promote the exercise of the

6.
right of establishment under these agreements?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member touch upon the right of establishment for nationals of
in the Community for the purposes of business or
Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC)
providing services as self-employed persons.

The Commission has no data or estimates on the number of CEEC nationals who have sought to

1.
establish themselves in the last two years in the Member States.

2. and 3.
The exercise of the right of establishment depends not only on the provisions of the Europe
agreements, but also on national legislation. Therefore, it is not practical to produce any general guidance
or advice for nationals of CEEC or Member States.

The Commission has received some complaints concerning delays in handling requests for the right

4.
of establishment. The complaints are addressed by the relevant national authority.

5.
There are currently four cases in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the
Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/
99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/C-257/99 and Jany etc./C-268/99). The Commission has
submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer
2000.

No special action is foreseen to promote the exercise of the right of establishment under the Europe

6.
agreements.

(2000/C 225 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products

Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (1) on the certification of PDO and PGI products offered the Italian Government
the option of accrediting only one private body for each designated product. This decision would appear
to be detrimental to the fundamental rights of those farmers who meet the requirements laid down in the
product specification, as they are obliged to accept both the prices and the inspection standards that the
sole inspection body deems the most appropriate. Moreover, there have been reports of cases in which the
private body, in agreement with the co-operative for the protection of designation of origin ((cid:145)consorzio
di tutela(cid:146)), allegedly adopted inspection procedures which were in direct breach of the rules contained in
the official product specification registered with the Commission.

Can the Commission therefore state which institutions are responsible for verifying that

1.
inspections carried out by private bodies comply with the rules laid down in the product specification?

the

2. Would it not be appropriate to leave the choice of private inspection firms to the free market, to
enable individual producers and producers(cid:146) associations to seek directly the best economic and technolo-
gical conditions for the certification of their products?