WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. 1999 discharge ‐ agriculture.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, Netherlands, aid to agriculture, confidentiality, fraud, redemption, report

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/67

With regard to question 2.7(c): The reply does not correspond to the question. The question refers to fraud
and irregularities, and not the common organisations of the market designed to restrict surplus production.
Consequently, the Commission is asked once again to reply to the above question.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The question in point 2.7(c) of the second (cid:145)Blak(cid:146) questionnaire for the 1999 discharge, which the
Honourable Member is referring to, was:

Will the Commission indicate where in the regulatory framework regarding consumption aid for
Skimmed milk, or any other dairy product, penalties up to eight times the amount of the subvention
can be claimed (e.g. consumption aid for olive oil, paragraph 6, article 12, Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 643/93, of 19 March 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2677/85 laying down
implementing rules in respect of the system of consumption aid for olive oil (1)).

In the reply given to point 2.7 (c) the Commission explained the procedure for paying aid for the use of
skimmed milk powder or butter in certain industrial products and gave examples of sanctions in the milk
sector.

It is correct that the Commission did not explicitly reply to the question of where in the milk sector
sanctions of up to eight
the Commission can inform the
Honourable Member that such an explicit provision is not foreseen in any of the regulations governing the
milk sector.

times an aid can be claimed. However,

Aid for the use of skimmed milk powder in animal feed and for butter used in ice cream, pastry etc. is
only paid to undertakings approved by the Member States (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999, of
17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the
grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such
skimmed-milk powder (2), article 9, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/1997, of 15 December
1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated
butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (3), article 10). The
approval is subject to a number of conditions. If controls reveal that an undertaking does not comply with
these conditions, in addition to the loss of the aid, the approval can be suspended for one to twelve
months, depending on the seriousness of the irregularity. This may indeed in itself constitute a heavy
sanction.

In order to complete the information, it may be of interest to the Honourable Member to know that for
area based aid schemes subject to controls under the Integrated Administration and Control System,
a sanction can reach almost five times the aid unduly applied for or already paid. If a control reveals
a discrepancy of more than 20 %, the beneficiary loses the total amount of the aid.

(1) OJ L 69, 20.3.1993.
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1999.
(3) OJ L 350, 20.12.1997.

(2001/C 350 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the
Commission therefore clarify the following points?

C 350 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

With regard to question 2.7(a):

(cid:129) Point 36. Can the Commission provide the relevant OLAF report?

(cid:129) Point 42. The reply does not correspond to the question. The question concerned the actions of the
Dutch authorities mentioned in point 42 and not those of the Belgian authorities mentioned in the
same point. Consequently, the Commission is asked once again to reply to question 2.7(a).

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The inquiries conducted in conjunction with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) were carried out in
accordance with 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 organisation of an information system in this field (1). Under that Regulation, information exchanged
between the Member States and the Commission is confidential and may not be divulged to persons other
than those in the Member States or within the Community institutions whose duties require that they have
access to it, while names of natural or legal persons may be disclosed to another Community institution
only in so far as this is necessary in order to prevent or prosecute an irregularity or to establish whether
an alleged irregularity has taken place. The Honourable Member should also refer to the Commission(cid:146)s
answer to his Written Question E-27/01 (2). That answer stated in particular that OLAF has concluded that
there were no grounds for holding that irregularities had taken place and that the two Member States
concerned have been informed of this.

As far as point 42 of the Court of Auditors(cid:146) Special Report No 1/99 is concerned, the Commission wishes
to inform the Honourable Member that the sum of NLG 5 136,89 to be reimbursed by the Dutch company
was refunded and credited to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
in
December 1997. In its answer to question 2.7 referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission
confined itself to what it regarded as the most important aspect, i.e. the measures taken with regard to
whey. The question to which the Honourable Member returns in his written question represents
3 350 kilograms or approximately 0 002 % of the quantity of skimmed-milk powder incorporated in
compound feedingstuffs in the Netherlands in 1997. In its reply to the Court of Auditors(cid:146) Special Report
No 1/99 the Commission has already stated that the amount was reimbursed. The Honourable Member
must share the Commission(cid:146)s view that, if it is to ensure that controls are effective, it has to concentrate its
efforts on questions that represent a material risk of expenditure, bearing in mind that managing the aid
and any reimbursements is the responsibility of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.
(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 162.

(2001/C 350 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1039/01

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

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Deaths of Galician seafarers in accidents at sea and European Union policy against marine

accidents

The deaths of Galician seamen in accidents at sea provide tragic evidence of the unavoidable need for
urgent action to bring about a drastic reduction in the dreadful accidents affecting Community fleets in
general. Three hundred Galician fishermen have lost their lives in the past decade (cid:129) 80 % of the total
number of such deaths for the whole of Spain (cid:129) and there have already been tragic accidents involving
the Galician fleet in 2001, such as those which occurred off Lisbon in January, in which seven Galician
seamen died, and more recently in Scottish waters, which claimed the lives of a further six seamen.