WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/99 by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission. Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (forestry support).
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, European Regional Development Fund, sawmill, silviculture

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/11

In view of these facts:can the Commission say whether the projects involved in the extension of the lorry
depot facilities envisaged by the authorities of Gorizia at the customs post are sustainable and compatible
with the pre-accession phase and Slovenia(cid:146)s entry into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The extension of the lorry depot in the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia, concerns
mainly infrastructure and, from a customs point of view, is not incompatible with the implementation of
the customs acquis, with the pre-accession strategy in the customs field, nor with the possible accession of
Slovenia to the Union.

On the compatibility of the measure with the existing agreement between Gorizia and Nova Goriza, the
Commission has no competence.

(2001/C 26 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/99

by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (forestry support)

Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 states that support for
forestry applies to the processing of forestry products and (in the next line) that investment related to the
use of wood as a raw material shall be limited to working operations prior to industrial processing.

This constitutes an ambiguity which makes the European Union(cid:146)s position vis-(cid:224)-vis its support for the
processing of forestry products incomprehensible.

Could the Commission clarify its position with regard to this important matter?

Does this mean that support for the first stage of timber processing (the work of sawmills) will be
discontinued?

If so, such a decision would deal a severe blow to the development of the timber trade in several European
countries at a time when the latter(cid:146)s economic impact is constantly increasing.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development
from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing
certain Regulations, to which the Honourable Member refers, restricts support from the EAGGF for
investment in improving and rationalising the harvesting, processing and marketing of wood as a raw
material
to operations prior to industrial processing. The Honourable Member has interpreted the
Regulation correctly in saying that first stage timber processing is excluded.

This is not a change in Community policy. The activities of sawmills have not been part-financed by the
EAGGF since approval in 1990 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 867/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving
the processing and marketing conditions for forestry products (1).

Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 does not abandon the timber industry activities previously financed by the
EAGGF. On the contrary the same criteria continue to apply.

C 26 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

There is nothing to stop Member States proposing a State aid scheme for certain timber industry activities
under specific circumstances. Schemes in Objective 1 and 2 area could be part-financed by the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) if proposed under a regional development programme.

(1) OJ L 191, 6.4.1990.

(2001/C 26 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/00

by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the franchises of private motorway operators in Spain

By means of an amendment to the draft law accompanying the year 2000 budget the Spanish Congress
has recently allowed motorway franchises to be extended before the initial period of operation for which
they were granted comes to an end. This applies inter alia to the franchises held by Aumar (13 years),
Acesa (5 years) and Iberpista. In addition, the government is drawing up a royal decree which will allow
the franchise on the Le(cid:243)n-Campomanes motorway to be extended by a further 29 years. Extensions are
justified on the grounds that they will lead to lower toll charges and further investment.

Francisco Sosa Wagner, who is Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Le(cid:243)n, takes the view
that franchises should be extended only if there are guarantees to the effect that the extra business which
they bring to private operators will result in benefits to the general public (1). Furthermore, the reductions
in toll charges must be genuine ones (not fictitious or merely apparent) and the interests of the consumer
must be paramount.

Does the Commission know whether or not the extensions granted by the Spanish authorities are in
accordance with the guidelines laid down in Directives 92/50/EC (2), 93/37/EC (3) and 89/440/EC (4) on the
coordination of the procedures for awarding public services and works contracts?

If not, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the Spanish authorities
comply with the above directives and to ensure that the interests of consumers prevail in any assessment
of the benefits stemming from toll motorway management policy in Spain?

Does the Commission think that the reductions in charges which have been used to justify the extensions
are genuine ones and that consumers have therefore benefitted from the operation?

Does the Commission not think that a policy of extending motorway franchises in exchange for further
investment in those motorways could run counter to Community guidelines which are intended to steer
the transport system towards alternative, non-road forms of transport and that it could have an adverse
effect on the drawing up of long-term national transport policy strategies?

(1) See opinion of October 1998, issued at the request of the Barcelona city authorities.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.
(4) OJ L 268, 15.9.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of either the new legislation or the draft Royal Decree mentioned by
the Honourable Member.

The Commission will do everything necessary to verify that the Member State complies fully with the
obligations arising from Community law, and the policy on public contracts in particular.