WRITTEN QUESTION P-2045/00 by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Revision of Poseima.
Date: 2000-06-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, EU aid, EU programme, European Union membership, Madeira, public hearing, region-EU relationship

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/51

necessary steps to restore the good name of the official concerned. In such cases the administration enjoys
a wide discretion, subject to review by the Community judicature, regarding the choice of the ways and
means of providing the official with assistance. It must refute those allegations and do everything possible
to restore the good name of the official concerned. Assistance under Article 24 can therefore take various
forms depending on the type of threat or action and the wishes of the victim(cid:146).

Does the Commission intend to follow through all the implications of the above statement in a number of
cases pending where officials are the subject of defamatory allegations? Furthermore, can the Commission
rule out the existence of requests from officials to whom it has omitted to give an answer pursuant to
Article 24 and in line with the above statement?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Commission confirms its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P- 1049/00 (1), in
which it stressed that it is required under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations to assist any official who, by
reason of his position or duties, is subjected to threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances, or any
attack to his person or property.

the cases brought

In each of
Staff Regulations applies.
Court of First Instance, in deciding which measures are the most appropriate.

the
In doing that it has considerable discretion, subject to supervision by the

the Commission examines whether Article 24 of

to its notice,

Each case is examined individually and dealt with on its own merits. A request for assistance may be
turned down because the acts about which the official complains do not fall within the category in respect
of which assistance can be provided. Alternatively, the Commission may decide to provide assistance in a
form which differs from that requested.

The Staff Regulations provide the official with means of redress in respect of any decision taken under
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that requests for assistance are still pending and
that a reply will be given as soon as they have been fully examined taking into account, in particular, the
individual circumstances of each official.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 15.

(2001/C 103 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2045/00

by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Revision of Poseima

In the light of the preparatory work being undertaken by the Commission(cid:146)s services with a view to the
revision of Poseima, can the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:129) at what stage of the revision process will the Portuguese government and the regional governments of
the Azores and Madeira be involved, by way of consultation or participation; or, if this has been done
already, at what stage did it take place?

(cid:129) has provision been made, or will provision be made, for the social partners, notably the farmers(cid:146)
to be involved in the revision process by way of consultation or

representative organisations,
participation?

(cid:129) have any of the bodies named in the previous paragraphs submitted specific proposals to the

Commission for measures to be launched, amended or repealed?

(cid:129) when does the Commission intend to conclude the process of revision of Poseima?

C 103 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

A partnership exercise with the competent authorities is in progress in preparation for an overhaul of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and
Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (1) (Poseima Agriculture). Presentation of the proposed
changes is entered in the Commission(cid:146)s work programme for the autumn.

Proposals for changes to the Regulation have been received from the Portuguese Government, the regional
authorities and certain social partners.

A grand partnership day was organised by the Commission on 23 November 1999.

On the occasion of visits to the Azores and Madeira and at meetings in Brussels the Commission is able to
meet the organisations representing farmers.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(2001/C 103 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/00

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Clearing of accounts of the EAGGF

Regulation 1287/95/EC (1) has extended the scope of Article 5 of Regulation 729/70/EEC (2) in a number
of major respects. For the first time it lays down rules enabling the Commission to refuse Member States(cid:146)
financing requests under the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The fourth paragraph of Article 5(2)(c) says:

The Commission shall evaluate the amounts to be excluded having regard in particular to the degree
of non-compliance found. The Commission shall take into account the nature and gravity of the
infringement and the financial loss suffered by the Community.

This clause in Regulation 729/70/EEC has been adopted verbatim in Article 7(4) of Regulation 1258/99/
EC, the currently valid regulation. The second sentence in particular is a frequent cause of confusion since
it clearly makes evidence of financial loss grounds fore not making payments to Member States, while
leaving open the question of how to prove financial loss to the Community.

However, with the extension of the procedure for the clearing of accounts for the new support period to
include a number of areas of structural support in rural areas (outside the Objective 1 areas), there is an
increasing need for clarification of the practical implementation of this text by the responsible bodies of
the Commission.

How do the Commission services actually establish whether there has been (cid:145)financial loss suffered by

1.
the Community(cid:146) as referred to above?

To what extent has the rule on charging a Member State in respect of a financial

loss (cid:129) first
2.
described in a regulation in 1995 (cid:129) led to a change in the way the Commission services assess audit
results?

(1) OJ L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13.