WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Unfair competition in the tourist accommodation sector.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Province of Antwerp, State aid, application of EU law, camping, competence of the Member States, project evaluation, restriction on competition

C 187 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

agreement would distinguish between both concepts. In accordance with the Commission(cid:146)s own unilateral
declaration, the total breaks down into € 28 million for fishing rights, with the remainder earmarked for
development aid.

In addition to this budgetary peculiarity, this agreement is among those with the largest amounts of
funding, for which reason Parliament ought to be asked for its assent.

Does the Commission consider that the EP ought to give its assent to the agreement reached with
Greenland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission would like to recall that the question of the assent procedure first came up in connection
with the conclusion of the 3rd Protocol with Greenland in 1994. However, the matter was not pursued on
account of lack of clarity concerning the exact meaning of the terms (cid:145)important budgetary implications(cid:146) in
the 2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty.

It should also be recalled that, in connection with the conclusion of the 1996 Fisheries Agreement with
Mauritania, the Parliament introduced an appeal for annulment of the Council Regulation approving that
agreement (case C-189/97). In its judgement of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice ruled that the financial
compensation due under this agreement, i.e. amounts between ECU 55,16 million and ECU 51,56 million
per annum, did not have (cid:145)important budgetary implications for the Community(cid:146) within the meaning of the
2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty. This judgment was based on
the facts that the budgetary amounts involved represented around 1 % of the credits for external relations
and 5 % of the credits for fisheries, which was considered not to be important.

The new 4th Protocol with Greenland will provide for a financial compensation of € 42,82 million per
annum, clearly below the amounts which were at issue in Case C-189/97. Nor do these amounts exceed
the percentages of the year 2000 credits for external relations and for fisheries mentioned in the
judgement. Therefore, the Commission is not of the opinion that the EC Treaty requires the assent of the
Parliament.

(2001/C 187 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Unfair competition in the tourist accommodation sector

The Antwerp Provincial Administration intends to invest BEF 440 million in the renovation of the
campsite on the Province(cid:146)s own land at Zilvermeer Mol. The Commission is to bear BEF 110 of this
amount through the ERDF. This ERDF subsidy could be regarded as unfair competition with private
campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp.

Does the Commission regard ERDF support for the renovation of the campsite on the Province(cid:146)s land at
Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as constituting unfair competition with private campsite owners in the
Province of Antwerp?

If so, will the Commission withdraw the ERDF aid for this project in order to prevent unfair competition
with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

If not, what are the Commission(cid:146)s arguments for not regarding the use of ERDF aid for the renovation of
the campsite on the Province(cid:146)s land at Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as unfair competition with private
campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/47

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

information provided by the Flemish authorities,

On the basis of
the possibility of renovating the
Zilvermeer camping ground was suggested in the context of local discussions to prepare the objective 2
programme for the province of Antwerp, which is still under negotiation. No application for a project to
be realised in this area has yet been submitted.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the
structural funds (1), in particular Article 8, paragraph 3, the implementation of assistance is the responsi-
bility of the Member States, at the appropriate territorial level. Therefore, if the Zilvermeer project would
eventually be submitted, its appraisal for funding via the future objective 2 programme for the province of
Antwerp is first and foremost a matter for the Flemish managing authority.

In accordance with Article 34, paragraph 1(g) of the above mentioned Regulation, the managing authority
has to ensure that all operations funded in the context of the programme are in compliance with
Community policies, including in particular Community legislation in the area of State aid. If the managing
authority has any doubts as to whether a particular operation is in conformity with Community State aid,
it would be prudent for it to seek advice from the department dealing with State aid issues in the regional
or national administration or from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Additional rules to ensure continuing prevention of a renewed BSE infection among cattle

1.
In the light of the recent discovery of more cows suffering from BSE in France and the Netherlands,
within what timescale does the Commission expect the existing regulations to bring about a final end to
the continuing problem of (cid:145)mad cow disease(cid:146)?

Are parts of slaughter animals now still being used in any way (cid:129) whether legally or illegally (cid:129) in the

2.
Member States of the European Union for feeding to (originally herbivorous) cattle.

Are checks aimed at preventing relatively cheap offal from being used in feedstuffs adequate to

3.
ensure that any new use of animal-based feeds can be ruled out on a lasting basis?

By what additional measures (cid:129) relating both to animal feed and to the import of cattle from outside
4.
the European Union (cid:129) is the Commission currently proposing to ensure that Europe is fully protected
from any new BSE infection as soon as possible and from the risk of further groups of consumers
eventually contracting Creutzfeld-Jacob disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Given that the average incubation period of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is five years, the
Commission expects to see a reduction in the clinical incidence of BSE approximately five years after the
introduction of effective control measures.

Since August 1994, the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants has been banned. This prohibition has
been extended from 1 January 2001 to the feeding of any processed animal protein to any farmed animal,
as a temporary measure. Rendered animal fat is still allowed for incorporation in ruminant feed provided it
has been processed in the specified manner. The safety of tallow in such feed has recently been assessed by
the Scientific Steering Committee, which recommends an additional heat treatment to increase its safety.