WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Talks between the Commissioner Frank Fischler and the Moroccan Prime Minister and other members of the Government concerning the fisheries agreement between the European Union and Morocco.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, Morocco, fishing agreement

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/9

attempting to combat such illegal activities. In particular, the Commission is aware of the issue of flags of
convenience in sustaining (cid:145)pirate(cid:146)
fishing and is calling upon Member States to ratify urgently the
Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
Vessels on the High Seas. This agreement has already been ratified by the Community in 1996.
Furthermore, within Community legislation there are provisions dealing with control, fleet and market
policy which could be effective in tackling the problem of (cid:145)illegal fishing(cid:146) when and if carried out by
Community or third country vessels allowed to operate in our waters. It is the legal responsibility of the
Member States to implement these rules and to ensure compliance with them.

In addition, the Commission is actively participating in the development of an international plan of action,
within the context of the Food and Agricultural organisation (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries, to curb illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. On this point, the Commission is particularly
concerned not only by flags of convenience vessels but also by ports of convenience.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures
applicable to fishing activities in the Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96 (OJ L 6, 10.1.1998).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2479/98 of 12 November 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 laying down
certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the Antarctic (OJ L 309, 19.11.1998).

(2001/C 350 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/01

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Talks between the Commissioner Frank Fischler and the Moroccan Prime Minister and other
members of the Government concerning the fisheries agreement between the European Union and
Morocco

In the talks between the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Prime Minister and other
members of the Moroccan Government held on 3 and 4 January this year, as in those held with other
responsible authorities over the last few months, it would seem that the Commission(cid:146)s policy position
consisted in aiming for an agreement which, whilst starting the first year under what are considered
acceptable conditions, although much less favourable than in the agreement for the years 1995-1999,
opens the way to a rapid and total elimination, in the space of a few years, of the Spanish fleets from
Galicia, Andalucia and the Canaries, as well as the Portuguese fleet, which used to fish off the Moroccan
and Saharan coasts. Anybody interested in this serious problem might gain the impression that the
the countries concerned and against ship-owners and
Commission, possibly with the collusion of
is negotiating with a view to total withdrawal from Moroccan waters, without using the
fishermen,
European Union(cid:146)s full negotiating capacity in the talks with Morocco and hence not
fulfilling the
responsibilities for Community fisheries conferred on it.

1.

Is this, as it seems to be, the Commission(cid:146)s negotiating position? If not, what actually is its position?

Does the Commission not believe that the ship-owners and fishermen affected, as well as all the

2.
Members of the European Parliament, should know what the Commission is doing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The Commission has maintained a constant position throughout its contacts with Morocco and that
position reflects the mandate approved by the Council in October 1999.

A new phase has to be opened in relations with Morocco and this is best exemplified by the Commission(cid:146)s
concrete proposals to assist the growth and development of the Moroccan fisheries sector, as well as to
defend the legitimate European interests.

C 350 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

All the efforts during the last months, at the meetings of the Parties at technical and political level, in close
co-ordination with the most concerned Member States, have been focused on delineating a new framework
for a fisheries partnership which must be mutually beneficial and balanced.

This position will be maintained by the Commission, in line with the directives of the Council.

The Commission reiterates its undertaking to regularly and fully inform the Council, the Parliament, and all
the actors involved of the developments on this key issue over the coming weeks.

(2001/C 350 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0133/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Schemes to vary national demand

Is the Commission aware of any schemes operating in the Member States of the euro area which have the
effect of varying demand nationally in order to escape the full consequences of an interest rate and
exchange rate operating only for the euro area as a whole?

Will it describe any such schemes?

Does the Commission see any legal or other impediment to:

(a)

(b)

(c)

the variation of capital charges in the banking sector in order to guard against the higher risk of, for
example, property lending;

the variation of tax reliefs or mandatory contributions to pension funds depending on the cyclical
position of the economy;

the taxation or tax relief of interest payments within the territory of a Member State depending on the
projection of the economic cycle?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

In the Community banking sector minimal compulsory capital charges to address risks to the financial
system are established by directives at European level. National authorities may impose higher charges in
order to guard against higher risks. If, however, this increased charges were to be introduced with the
objective of influencing demand growth in a Member State economy, it could be interpreted as acting
contrary to the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital in the cross-border provision of
financial services. Any such barrier would require justification under the relevant EC Treaty provisions.

Under the subsidiarity principle Member States are free to decide on the parameters of their domestic
pension systems, including the potential variation of pension contribution rates as long as they are applied
in a non-discriminatory manner. History shows a number of examples when governments have reduced
unit labour costs through a reduction of indirect labour costs thus causing the real exchange rate to
depreciate (the Honourable Member is referred to an Annex which is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat). However, such tax measures are generally taken for structural and
not conjunctural reasons.