WRITTEN QUESTION P-0667/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Set-aside premiums for RWE and Rheinbraun (Germany).
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Germany, lignite, set-aside

C 280 E/218

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

(2000/C 280 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU respect for powers and responsibilities

Please indicate in the occasions on which the European Court of Justice has found the Union to be acting
ultra vires (i.e. exceeding its powers).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 280 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0667/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Set-aside premiums for RWE and Rheinbraun (Germany)

Is it true that the German undertakings RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set-aside premiums

1.
for land on which brown coal is being mined?

2.

3.

If so, on what legal basis, for what period and in what amount have the premiums been paid?

If so, were the payments made once only, or are they continuing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

As regards payments mentioned by the Honourable Member there is actually no knowledge that such

1.
payments have been made or are being made in relation to the companies RWE or Rheinbraun.

Set-aside payments for surfaces, which are currently subject to open-cast-mining would contravene the
relevant Community legislation. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for
producers of certain arable crops (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 laying down the detailed
rules thereof (2) provide for the requirements in connection with the set-aside of land. Paragraph 2 of
Article 3 of the latter Regulation, among others, states clearly that such area must be cared for so as to
maintain good cropping conditions. Moreover, such area must not be put to any lucrative use incompa-
tible with the growing of an arable crop. Using an area for the open-cast-mining of brown coal would, in
fact, lead to the disappearance of the land in question and would, therefore, obviously be incompatible
with these conditions.

Given this legal framework the German authorities would therefore be barred from paying aid for set-aside
for such land. It falls within the competence of the Member States(cid:146) authorities to check whether an aid
application for set-aside payments meets the conditions under the relevant Community legislation. Like the
other Member States, Germany (in this case Northrhine-Westphalia)
is bound under the regulations
establishing an integrated administration and control system (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (3)
and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (4)) to submit all area aid applications to an administrative
control. Moreover, at least 5 % of the applications have to be controlled on the spot. Applications

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/219

subjected to an on-the-spot check have to be selected by the relevant authorities on the basis of a risk
analysis and an element of representativeness of the aid applications submitted.

The Commission has asked the German authorities to further look into this question and to report back
their finding to the Commission. The Commission will, subsequently, inform the Parliament of the results.

2. and 3.

It will be necessary to wait and see what the answer of the German authorities will be.

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994.
(3) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.
(4) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.

(2000/C 280 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0773/00

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Importing reindeer meat from Russia to countries in the EU

According to information received by the Finnish Reindeer Herders(cid:146) Association,
the EU Standing
Veterinary Committee made a decision of principle on 12 January 2000 (amending Decision 97/217/
EC) (1) on the import of reindeer meat from the Kola Peninsula area of Russia. Until now, the import of
meat from Russia has been prevented because the country is defined as a foot-and-mouth disease region
and because of substandard abattoir and meat handling conditions. Representatives of the EU Standing
Veterinary Committee made a tour of inspection to the Kola Peninsula concerning this matter.

Does the Commission know whether the tour of inspection, that affected the preparation of the issue and
decision made by the Standing Veterinary Committee, was made in impartial conditions; did the
Commission check the monitoring of disease, meat handling and quality testing, and did the Commission
clarify the possibilities of creating an outside monitoring system by which the origin of reindeer meat can
be reliably proven in all cases?

(1) OJ L 88, 3.4.1997, p. 20.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0179/00 by
Mr Sepp(cid:228)nen during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s March 2000 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(2000/C 280 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage

More than 50 % of the field margins in my constituency (the South West of England) are over two metres.
The Commission and the Court of Auditors have recently instructed MAFF to reduce the amount of
subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not
wish to lose an average of £969 per year, they will have to plough right up to, and possibly cut back, their