WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission. Reducing the running costs of farms.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Italy, advance payment, aid to agriculture

C 103 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Commission suggested that since aid was required to repair structural damage, funds from the
European Development Fund (EDF) should be used, as in 1998. St Maarten may have submitted projects
to the National Authorising Officer regularly, but the Commission is only aware of those which it receives.

The EDF funding allocated to the Netherlands Antilles amounts to € 20 925 million under the sixth EDF,
74 % of which is at the primary commitment stage, € 23,8 million under the seventh EDF, 79 % of which
is at the primary commitment stage, and € 26 625 million under the eighth EDF, of which 0,6 % has been
committed so far. St Maarten(cid:146)s capacity to absorb aid and the time required to complete feasibility studies
are the reasons for this rate of commitment, which is not substantially different from that in other partner
countries.

For each EDF the parties sign a territorial indicative programme and define projects. The Commission
cooperates with the Netherlands Antilles as a single entity rather than individual islands.

The partnerships, framework of cooperation and role of each of the parties under the Decision on
association are clearly defined and the Commission is doing everything within its power to speed up its
commitments. There is no indication of any specific default in this respect.

(2001/C 103 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Reducing the running costs of farms

(13 July 2000)

Can the Commission say whether it intends to promote the introduction of a regulation allowing the early
payment of aid and income support due under the terms of Regulation (EEC) 1765/92 (1) and Regulation
(EEC) 2078/92 (2) (now incorporated in Regulation (EC) 1775/1999 (3), issued following the Agenda 2000
reform) as is already the case for Regulation (EEC) 2080/92 (4), Regulation (EEC) 565/80 (5) and Regulation
(EEC) 3665/87 (6)?

This would achieve the aim of preventing the tension caused by the notorious incapability of the paying
authority (cid:129) the Italian State intervention agency (cid:129) to respect the deadlines laid down and would help to
reduce costs for farms which are obliged to obtain bank advances for these sums.

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.
(3) OJ L 212, 12.8.1999, p. 9.
(4) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 96.
(5) OJ L 62, 7.3.1980, p. 5.
(6) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The Commission is aware that prompt payment of aid and premiums to beneficiaries is a key element in
the effectiveness of the common agricultural policy (CAP).

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of
certain arable crops laid down time limits for payment of aid for arable crops by the Member States(cid:146)
paying agencies. The new Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establish-
ing a support system for producers of certain arable crops) (1), which applies from the financial year 2000,
also lays down time limits for payment of the aid. Early payment of this aid to recipients would require the

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/131

Commission to reimburse payments to the Member States earlier. It would involve budgeting a very large
amount twice over in the transitional financial year, thus leading to an overrun of the ceilings laid down in
the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on
budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure. It is therefore not possible to introduce
early payment of this aid.

With regard to payment of aid for arable crops by the Italian paying agency AGEA, the Honourable
Members(cid:146) attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission requested Italy to tighten up controls in this
sector. Since these checks had to be carried out before making payment, the Commission authorised Italy
to delay these payments until the first six-month period following the time limit laid down in the rules.

Also, with regard to payments under the old accompanying measures, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/
92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the
protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture, did
not lay down any time limits for payment. They left it to the Member States to introduce administrative
provisions at national level best suited to the programmes(cid:146) specific requirements.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/00

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and competition in connection with the

situation of teachers in schools officially recognised as equivalent to State schools

The perpetuation in officially recognised schools in Italy of blatant disparities and discrimination contrary
to the spirit of the Italian Constitution and European legislation on competition has prompted the
questioners to raise the following issues at a higher level.

The question is therefore not intended to refer to or interfere with Article 126 of the EC Treaty, since the
aim is not to deal with the organisation of school systems but with the infringement of the right to work
caused by discrimination between the teaching staff of State schools and of those officially recognised as
equivalent.

1.
Teachers in these officially recognised schools have been allowed access to the competitive qualifying
examination, in which, incomprehensibly, only half the years of service are recognised (cid:129) the overall mark
includes both the level achieved in the examination and half the number of years of service. Why, when
the final list is drawn up, is the service is ignored?

2.
Can the Council explain why the Italian Ministry of Education does not systematically allow teachers
in officially recognised schools access to competitive examinations by qualification only since, once again,
the years of service do not count?

in the provincial authorities(cid:146)

3. Why,
lists of supply teachers, does service in officially recognised
schools only count for half (why not one third or two thirds? Does a teacher in such a school only work
half time?).

4. Why, when a teacher passes the ordinary competitive examination, are the marks relating to teaching
not recognised?