WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Increase in the premium for the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties.
Date: 2000-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, agricultural guidance, common agricultural policy, tobacco

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/165

(2000/C 303 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0241/00

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Cost for Greece of implementing the Schengen Agreement

Over the last few years Greece has persistently endeavoured to set up the infrastructure necessary for the
implementation of the Schengen Agreement: it has notably set up the (cid:145)Border Guard Service(cid:146), strengthened
its border services by recruiting an additional 756 police officers and its Port Police by recruiting a further
500 officers and port guards and ordered and purchased high-tech equipment. In particular, the Greek
state has equipped its services with portable heat detection cameras to monitor the borders, photophone-
type image teletransmission apparatuses to detect forged documents, binocular systems for night observa-
tion and surveillance and apparatuses for the mechanical processing of travel documents. It has also taken
delivery of speedboats from Sweden and the USA and sophisticated four-wheel drive jeep-type vehicles in
order more effectively to monitor the hundreds of kilometres of land and sea borders it shares with non-
EU and non-Schengen countries. Greece has thus already equipped itself with, or ordered, very expensive
high-tech systems and instruments in order to meet its obligations, since its neighbours are all non-EU
countries and some of these (Turkey and Albania) are sources of large numbers of illegal immigrants. It
should be pointed out that some countries which are also parties to the Schengen Agreement, such as
Luxembourg, have not only not incurred any additional cost since the entry into force of this Agreement,
but actually face less of a financial burden than before, since they have withdrawn the security forces
which used to be at the borders of other countries which are now (cid:145)Schengen states(cid:146) to the interior.

In view of the above, will the Council say whether the Schengen Agreement countries have received any
funding to furnish themselves with the necessary equipment, whether Greece has made any official request
to the EU in this connection and, if aid has been provided, what is the extent of this aid?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

Member States applying the Schengen acquis have not received financial assistance from the Community
to implement the measures required at their borders by the Schengen Convention. This is also true for the
period when, before the Amsterdam Treaty come into force, Schengen cooperation was governed by
decision-making procedures external to the Union.

The matter of financial compensation was raised, in particular by Greece, during the negotiations with
those States that joined the Schengen group after the Schengen Convention was signed in 1990, but it was
established that no such financial compensation was provided for therein.

Since the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the Union framework the Council has not received
any request from Greece for compensation. It should, however, be noted that the Tampere European
Council called for closer cooperation and technical assistance between the services controlling Member
States(cid:146) borders, in particular in the form of exchange and technological transfer programmes, especially at
sea borders, and for the applicant countries to be involved in such cooperation without delay.

(2000/C 303 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Increase in the premium for the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties

During the 1992 revision of the tobacco regime the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties
(group VIII) was unfairly treated, since while this tobacco was considered to be of exceptional quality and
exceptionally in demand, the premium was set at the same level as that for group V varieties which receive
the least aid.

C 303 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Since Greek tobacco producers suffer from this unfair treatment and the Community budget showed an
overall surplus of some ECU 28,5 million for the 1993-98 period as a result of this measure, will the
Commission say whether it intends to put an end to the unfair treatment to which the Kaba Koulak classic
group of tobacco varieties has been subjected since 1993 and increase the premium by 15 % without any
corresponding reduction in the quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in raw tobacco (1) places tobacco variety Kaba Koulak classic in group VIII.

The amount of the premium for this variety is laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 of
22 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 and fixing the premiums and guarantee
thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests (2).
This Regulation strikes a balance between guarantee thresholds and premiums for the various groups of
varieties.

Nevertheless, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that a thorough analysis will be made
of the special situation of Kaba Koulak classic producers in the framework of the report on the operation
of the common market organisation for raw tobacco which the Commission must submit to Parliament
and the Council by 1 April 2002.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2000/C 303 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0253/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Regulations

What is the total number of regulations the Commission estimates were agreed in 1998, broken down by
(a) Commission Directives, (b) Commission Decisions, (c) Council Directives, (d) Council/European Parlia-
ment Directives, (e) instruments not published in the Official Journal, (f) routine management instruments
valid for a limited time? How does this vary with previous years and the latest estimate for 1999?

Reply given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The numbers of Regulations, Directives and Decisions adopted by Parliament and the Council or by the
Council alone or by the Commission from 1995 to 1999, excluding management instruments with a
limited life, have been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. The data are
taken from the interinstitional data base, Celex. Since 1997, they have been included in the General Report
on the Activities of the European Union (tables 28 (1997 and 1998) and 29 (1999)). To keep track of the
trend in the number of legislative instruments in force, the number repealed or having expired during the
year in question is also shown.

Routine management instruments with a limited life (sometimes a few days or a few months) published in
the Official Journal (L series) with the title in light type are all Commission regulations and mainly concern
agricultural policy. Their number is as follows (source: Celex): 1831 in 1999, 1809 in 1998, 1603 in
1997, 1402 in 1996 and 1877 in 1995.