WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Measures to protect European hazelnut production.
Date: 2000-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, France, Italy, Latium, Spain, nut

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/105

How does it intend to ensure compliance with the relevant EU directives?

What action will it take to protect these areas in terms of town planning?

just before work starts on the La Rustica-Rome
Finally, how does the Commission intend to ensure,
stretch, that there will be no discrepancies in the provision of assistance and no unequal treatment in
relation to the hundreds of citizens affected, who all live in comparable districts?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

With reference to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission would stress that it
does not have competence either for the protection of town areas in terms of town planning or for
to citizens living in
preventing discrepancies in the provision of assistance and unequal
comparable districts.

treatment

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the
powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all
the
necessary measures,
EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of

In the specific case, Community directives on environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337/
EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1) and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC (2)) constitute
the possibly relevant Community law. The Commission assesses the situation on this legal basis.

The issue concerning the correct application of directives on environmental impact assessment in relation
to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member has been already dealt with by the Commission in
1997/1998. Since the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question does not contain any new relevant element,
he is kindly requested to refer to the reply given by the Commission to Written Question E-578/98 by
Mrs Angelilli (3).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.

(2001/C 103 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/00

by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Measures to protect European hazelnut production

(7 July 2000)

World consumption of hazelnuts is around 600 000 tonnes, most of which comes from Turkey
(550 000 tonnes), while 90 % of the rest is produced by Italy and 10 % by Spain and France.

In view of the current privatisation of the sector in Turkey which, in addition to nullifying the agreement
with the EU stipulating the stockpiling of a third of its output, will enable Turkish hazelnut production to
invade the world market, and also in view of the forthcoming expiration of the Common Organisation of
the Market in nuts:

1. Could the Commission list the measures to be taken to protect European hazelnut production,
particularly the Italian product grown mainly around Viterbo, and to guarantee producers(cid:146) income?

C 103 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

2. Could the Commission announce the renewal of the Community rules providing for support for

Italian, Spanish and French producers?

3. Could the Commission announce the granting of urgent aid to the sector, recognising the special

features of nut production?

4. Could the Commission announce a requirement for the confectionery industry to state on their

products the origin of the hazelnuts used to make them?

(2001/C 103 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE)
and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Extension of Community aid for nut producers

The flat-rate aid granted for hazelnuts under Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (1) will expire next
year for Italian producers and the provisions in the common organisation of the market in fruit and
vegetables are insufficient and inappropriate to enable producers to compete with non-Member States that
are highly competitive, particularly Turkey.

With regard to hazelnut production, the province of Viterbo,
consequences if support measures for hazelnut producers are not adopted.

in particular, could suffer very serious

As part of the reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, planned
in
for September 2000, will the Commission intervene to protect European hazelnut producers and,
particular, Italian producers (cid:129) given that 90 % of hazelnuts produced in Europe are harvested in Italy (cid:129)
by extending direct aid pending the establishment of a new support system which would include both
measures aimed at improving quality and marketing and direct flat-rate aid for hazelnuts?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2277/00 and E-2386/00
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

Financial support for Community nut production under Title IIa of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72
of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1) was discussed at the
Council meeting (agriculture) of 17 July 2000. In their conclusions, the Ministers stated the following:

The Council invites the Commission to propose that the payments to nut growers be continued within
the budget for 2001 for those programmes which would otherwise expire in 2000.

Moreover, in the context of the report which it will submit on the fruit and vegetables regime before
the end of 2000, the Commission will study the situation of the nut sector.

As regards declarations of origin of raw materials used by the processing industry, there are no specific
rules for nuts and there are no plans to introduce any such rules.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.