WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Decision on the proceedings against Spain concerning state aid to the electricity sector.
Date: 2001-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, competition, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production

C 187 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

As explained above, the projects originated from proposals submitted in response to public calls
4.
published in the Official Journal. The corresponding Commission decisions were taken in accordance with
all relevant rules and procedures.

Sensus and Aventinus-I and -II were funded under the budget line B6-6121.113 of the Telematics

5.
Applications Programme (1994-1998).

6.
A maximum Community contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus-I, of which
€ 2 341 190 was subsequently claimed and paid. A maximum Community contribution of € 550 000 was
approved for Aventinus-II, of which € 513 777 was subsequently claimed and paid.

A maximum Community contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which € 478 753 has
been paid as of 31 December 2000. Further cost claims are in progress.

7.
These projects were aimed at developing technologies to facilitate cross-border collaboration between
law enforcement and security agencies. The Commission is aware that AfA (Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen),
which was involved both in Aventinus and Sensus through its test centre for language technology, is
a governmental body reporting to the German Federal Chancellery. As such, AfA has legitimate interests in
the research areas addressed by the projects.

The Commission does not consider that it was misinformed about the objectives and results of the
projects. As all tasks foreseen in the project work programmes have been successfully completed, the
Commission has no specific grounds at this time to ask for recovery of any of the money paid to date. The
Commission will nevertheless give due consideration to the information which was recently brought to its
attention and assess whether this information may lead it to reconsider its position, including, but not
limited to, carrying out a financial audit in accordance with the terms of the contracts.

(1) OJ C 230, 26.8.1993.

(2001/C 187 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Decision on the proceedings against Spain concerning state aid to the electricity sector

The Commission has stated on various occasions that there is no legal incompatibility preventing Vice-
President de Palacio from intervening in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity
undertakings to meet the costs of the transition to competition.

Recently, the Spanish press has reported the valiant efforts of Mrs de Palacio to gain control of the
proceedings so as to prevent the Spanish Government from coming under fire (cid:129) no doubt substantially
the same government of which she was a member. The Spanish press has also pointed out that the Vice-
President(cid:146)s battling approach has succeeded in securing the postponement of the proceedings against
Spain, which were to be dealt with at the Commission meeting of 21 December 2000.

Does the Commission still believe that Vice-President de Palacio is not seeking to defend the interests of
the Spanish Government in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

It is not customary for the Commission to comment on press articles expressing only the author(cid:146)s views;
moreover, in this case, the Spanish press places very divergent interpretations on the matter.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/157

The Vice-President of the Commission, in her dual role as Member of the Commission and Member with
special responsibility for energy, contributes to the analysis of the costs of transition to competition in the
electricity sector in Spain, as in the other Member States, even though the case is being examined by the
Directorate-General for Competition and will thus in due course be the subject of a proposal by the
Member with special responsibility for competition to his colleagues. This is the background to the Vice-
President(cid:146)s involvement to date.

Lastly, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to his Written Questions
Nos E-1761/99 (1) and E-3178/00 (2) on the same subject.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.
(2) Not yet published.

(2001/C 187 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

Mussel farming is of vital importance in the coastal region of Galicia, where there are some 11 500 jobs
directly linked to the sector, of which 8 500 are permanent, as well as 7 000 jobs indirectly related to it.
This is particularly important, bearing in mind that the resources generated by mussel production are
spread across a broad social base and that decisions are taken locally, with the result that funds are
reinvested in the region. This has a multiplier effect on the local economy, helping to produce socio-
economic stability.

As far as aquaculture in general is concerned it is mussel farming which is the backbone of the sector,
since between 250 and 300 million kilos of mussels are cultivated annually in Galicia, making it the
world(cid:146)s second largest producer after China and the leading European producer, accounting for 50 % of
total EU production, with 35 % being sold fresh, 41 % earmarked for traditional processing and 24 % for
new alternative processing methods, which are increasingly popular.

Will the Commission provide details concerning the control measures applied by the EU to mussel imports
from third countries, particularly as regards the need to ensure the same health and quality standards as
those required for Community mussels?

Does the Commission not think that mussels should be included as a sensitive product under the
agreements on the establishment of free trade zones with third countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the reply the Commission gave to his Written Question
E-0529/99 (1), which deals with the hygiene provisions applying to imports of fishery products from third
countries.

In addition, it can be said that while the import of general fisheries products is currently permitted from
101 countries and territories (of which 54 are fully harmonised and 47 pre-listed) the import of bivalve
molluscs (including mussels) is currently permitted from only 14 countries (of which eight are fully
harmonised and six pre-listed), which is an indicator of the very strict provisions which apply.

Mussels of the genus Mytilus spp. pay a most favoured nation (MFN) duty of 10 % and a generalised
scheme of preferences (GSP) duty of 7 % when imported into the Community. Mussels of the genus Perna
spp. pay a MFN duty of 8 % and a GSP duty of 2,8 %. Prepared or preserved mussels of both species pay
a MFN duty of 20 % and a GSP duty of 7 %. This tariff structure shows that unprepared mussels are not as