WRITTEN QUESTION E-3453/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission. Planned closure of the shop at the European Commission.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, cessation of trading, electronic commerce, supermarket

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/125

The Union action plan on drugs provides a general framework for drug-related actions and policies in the
Union. It promotes a balanced and integrated approach to drug issues in which the reduction of the
demand and supply for drugs and action against drug trafficking are seen as mutually reinforcing elements.

The Commission takes into account the elements and trends underlined by the Honourable Member in the
implementation of the Union action plan on drugs. In particular, they will be considered when selecting
projects to be financed under different Community Programmes.

The Community programme on drug prevention has already financed many projects with direct relevance
to the issues raised in the Emcdda report. The Community framework programme for research and
development is also funding drug-related research.

In the area of crime prevention, the Commission has approved, in November 2000, a Communication on
the prevention of crime in the Union (3), in which a global approach and common guidelines are proposed
to prevent both crime and organised crime. This document also proposes a Council Decision for
establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for the prevention of
crime (Hippokrates).

(1) Council of the European Union, Brussels, 1 December 1999, 12555/3/99, rev. 3, limitØ Cordrogue 64.
(2) Council of the European Union, Brussels, 7 June 2000/9283/00, limitØ, Cordrogue 32.
(3) COM(2000) 786 final.

(2001/C 163 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3453/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Planned closure of the shop at the European Commission

According to Staff Committee notices, the Commission intends to close the shop reserved for officials
(the Economat). The Economat is not a duty-free shop as the press has alleged but a genuine commercial
undertaking where officials can purchase food and regional specialities in the area where the European
institutions are located.

The Economat is not therefore a shop for the privileged, as shown by the fact that all ministries and public
and private organisations have one. In addition, the European Parliament, during a recent meeting of the
College of Quaestors, also discussed the possibility of opening a shop.

How can the Commission justify any decision to close the Economat?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

One of the main reasons for starting up the Economats in the 1960s was to enable officials and other
agents of the Commission to buy food specialities and other products from their Member State of origin,
which, at that time, were generally were not available locally in Brussels and Luxembourg. As the
Honourable Member points out, the shops have never been privileged sales outlets.

The situation has obviously changed in the years since and the products available at the Economats can
now easily be found in many supermarkets as well as specialist shops. The original justification for the
creation of the Economats is consequently no longer valid.

For some years past, the Commission has pursued the option of inter-institutional co-operation in the
hope that economies of scale would have resulted and permitted more effective use of resources.

C 163 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Unfortunately, these negotiations have not had a productive outcome. Parliament has decided to use its
infrastructure in Brussels (cid:129) originally planned to house the (cid:145)Centre inter-institutionnelle d(cid:146)achats(cid:146) (cid:129) for
other purposes and to examine other options, including the opening of a (cid:145)night shop(cid:146) and a (cid:145)virtual shop(cid:146),
to meet potential consumer needs.

In July of this year the Commission made decisions on the basis of its Peer Group Review (undertaken to
match resources to priority activities) to abandon or reduce certain activities that were judged not to be
among the (cid:145)core(cid:146)
from
engagement in the operation of the Economats and, consequently, the closure of those shops.

the Institution. Those decisions included the proposed withdrawal

tasks of

Naturally, the Commission understands the desirability of accessible shopping facilities for personnel. In
the period before the proposed closure of the Economats, therefore, the Commission is analysing the
possibilities of launching a call for tender with a view to identifying private operators interested in
delivering products ordered directly by Commission staff and other potential consumers.

(2001/C 163 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3454/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Limited chances of survival for farms modernised on the basis of the Common agricultural policy

1.
Does the Commission still regard as a success the agricultural policy which has been conducted since
the first steps were taken towards European integration in the 1950s, and which has led to an increase in
scale, mechanisation, massive investment on the basis of loans, high volumes and yields and a huge loss of
jobs?

How does the Commission judge the fact that, in the Netherlands, where the policy referred to in
2.
question 1 has entailed radical adjustment, the large volumes of food produced have led to less of an
extent than anticipated to higher revenues, whilst the costs of land acquisition and investment have proved
higher than expected, leaving many farmers with a low income despite high capital investment and high
turnover?

3.
Is the Commission familiar with an article by Peter Vereijken in the (cid:145)Volkskrant(cid:146) of 18 October 2000?
The article points out that the average age of farmers in the Netherlands is continuing to rise (it is
currently 53). It also states that 50 % of production comes from cultivation under glass and small livestock
kept in houses, which account for just 1 % of the 2 million hectares of land used for agriculture. In
contrast, the total output of dairy farmers and arable farmers is barely rising, but accounts for 90 % of the
agricultural area. The author takes the view that the agricultural sector cannot survive in the face of cheap
imports which are the result of low wages and low environmental standards.

Can the Commission confirm that,

in Member States in which a radical restructuring of the
4.
agricultural sector has taken place,
farmers cannot survive on the basis of the market and will be
dependent in the long term on subsidies, for example being paid by the national authorities for their role
as managers of the countryside carrying out extensive farming?

5.
Does the Commission consider it possible to continue in the long term to subsidise from the
European budget farmers on modernised holdings, in addition to small farmers in Southern Europe and in
future eastern Member States, or does it assume that it is necessary for the survival of the agricultural
sector for the price of food to rise sharply?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

1.
Increasing productivity and assuring the availability of supplies constitute prime objectives of the
common agricultural policy (CAP), as set out in the EC Treaty. European agricultural production has
increased so rapidly and massively that the Community has become an exporter of agricultural products,