WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EP assent, Greenland, development aid, distribution of aid, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing rights, judgment of the Court (EU)

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/45

tend to further the objective of improving protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient
beings. However, as already recalled in the Commission(cid:146)s answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written
Question E-2654/00 (1), the commercial exploitation of fur-bearing animals is not against the law in the
Community or its Member States.

The Commission has no data on fraudulent imports of protected fur-bearing animals covered by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to more stringent controls on the import of animal skins, the Commission confirms that
under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection species
of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), which implements CITES in the Community,
appropriate controls of imports of specimens of endangered species are being carried out by customs
officers, equiped with the necessary identification materials.

In the light of public concern about the commercial exploitation of cat and dog furs,
including in
international trade, the Commission will follow up this question in order to examine whether it should
propose measures at European level, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity. The Commis-
sion will report back to the Parliament on progress on this issue.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 69.
(2) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/00

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Supply of water to Zaragoza

What decision has the Commission taken concerning possible financing from the Cohesion Fund for the
period 2000-2006 for the project to supply Zaragoza and the surrounding areas with water from the
Pyrenees?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In January 2001, the Commission proposed adoption of a decision on the part-financing by the Cohesion
Fund of a project to supply water to Zaragoza and 22 municipalities in the Ebro valley at a total cost of
€ 70 901 365. The work concerns pipes from the La Loteta dam to Zaragoza and the other localities but
does not include the transfer of water from the Pyrenees as originally planned.

(2001/C 187 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

(4 December 2000)

On 14 September 2000 the Commission concluded negotiations with Greenland for a new fisheries
agreement, which provides for an annual contribution from the EU of € 42,82 million for the period
2000-2006. The agreement makes no distinction between the two types of funding involved, namely that
in spite of the Commission(cid:146)s undertaking that the
for fishing rights and that for development aid,

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?