WRITTEN QUESTION E-0027/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Supply of buttermilk.
Date: 2001-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, Germany, Netherlands, animal nutrition, delivery, fraud, milk by-product, production aid

C 187 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Is the Commission aware that such payments are not free of charge, and that the costs are borne by the
distribution sector and the consumer? In some Member States,
including Belgium, there is a virtual
monopoly on the electronic payment systems market. Has the Commission received complaints relating to
this? Have inquiries been carried out by the Commission itself? If so, what is the state of affairs? What
specific action is the Commission planning to take in the period prior to the actual changeover from
national to euro coins and notes in order to prevent abuses of dominant positions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

like any other means of payment including cash
The Commission is aware that electronic payments,
payments, have costs and that these costs may be charged to the users of electronic payment systems, that
is merchants and consumers.

The Commission has received a complaint from Unizo (formerly NCMV), a Belgian association of retailers,
against Banksys, the operator of the Belgian electronic payment system BanContact/MisterCash. According
to Unizo Banksys abuses its dominant position on the Belgian market for electronic payments systems by
charging smaller retailers excessive and discriminatory prices. The Commission is investigating the
complaint and expects to finalise its examination in the course of this year.

A possible abuse of a dominant position, pursuant to Community competition law, cannot be excluded,
a priori, but naturally the Commission can start an examination when there are concrete indications that
an undertaking is abusing its dominant position on a certain market. Such an examination can be started
both following a complaint or ex officio.

(2001/C 187 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0027/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Supply of buttermilk

Paragraph 36 of the Court of Auditors Special Report No 1/99 concerning aid for the use of skimmed
milk and skimmed-milk powder as animal feed (1) states (cid:145)It was found in the Netherlands that the main aid
beneficiary (98 % in 1996) supplied buttermilk produced, without denaturing, to a farm in Germany. The
Dutch authorities, however, had never checked whether the buttermilk in question was actually used for
animal feed and, moreover, they had not asked the German authorities to carry out such checks.(cid:146)

The Commission(cid:146)s reply (contained in the same report) was as follows: (cid:145)For the case mentioned by the
Court concerning the Netherlands (paragraph 36) the Commission(cid:146)s services have initiated the procedure
for the necessary follow-up checks on-the-spot.(cid:146)

In the light of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

(a) What company (or companies) was (or were) involved;

(b) What action was taken by the Commission and the local authorities;

(c) What on-the-spot follow-up checks have been and are to be carried out;

(d) What is the current situation?

(1) OJ C 147, 27.5.1999.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/163

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission can confirm that, in light of the Court of Auditors Special Report No 1/99, the European
anti-fraud office (OLAF) did carry out the follow-up checks mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In this regard, the Commission would answer the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member as
follows:

(a) For reasons of confidentiality the names of the companies concerned may not be given.

(b) and (c) Two controls were conducted by OLAF. The first in the Netherlands, in June 1999 at the
premises of the buttermilk producer who received the aid and the second in Germany in July 1999 at
the premises of the buttermilk recipient. In both cases, these checks were conducted in partnership
with the national authorities under Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning
irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common
agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (1).

(d) Having conducted its on-the-spot checks, and clarified certain legal aspects on the general operation of
this measure, OLAF concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting that anything irregular had
occurred. The two Member States concerned were informed of the outcome in May 2000 and the
matter closed.

The Honourable Member may also wish to note that the scheme concerned, Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1105/68 of the Commission of 27 July 1968 on detailed rules for granting aid for skimmed milk for
use as feed (2), which provided for a subsidy on such buttermilk being used directly as animal feeding stuff,
was abolished on 31 December 1999 as part of the review of and legal changes made to the Common
Agricultural Policy support measures at that time.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.
(2) OJ L 184, 29.7.1968.

(2001/C 187 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Depopulation of sparsely populated rural areas in Colombia as a result of American poisoning of

vegetation

Can the Council confirm that the aerial spraying of the pesticide (cid:145)Round Up(cid:146) under the (cid:145)Colombia
1.
Plan(cid:146) is not confined to combating the cultivation of coca plants but, according to Dutch television reports,
is now also aimed at virgin primeval forest high up in the mountains, even though this has no connection
at all with discouraging the production of raw materials for drugs?

2.
How does it view the impression that has arisen in the meantime that this pesticide is increasingly
being used to contaminate water supplies with the result that the settlements located downstream become
uninhabitable and depopulated and that it is not the cultivation of raw materials for drugs that is harmed
by this action but the living environment of rebellious peasant farmers?

3.
Does it share my fear that expelling people and destroying their livelihoods may result in their
becoming dependent on involvement in the trade and production of drugs since this is the easiest way for
them to acquire a new source of income and that, as a result, the opposite is achieved of the reasoning
that is used to justify the destruction of the living environment?