WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. Inspection at GAL Cadispa in the Campania Region.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Campania, EU aid, EU control, EU programme, audit, rural development

C 350 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The lynx, brown bear and wolf are listed in Annex IV(a) to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (here after: (cid:145)the Directive(cid:146)). These species
are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme which requires, among others, that their deliberate
killing is prohibited.

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area of Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in
Annex V to the same Directive. Therefore, the prohibition of the use of all means capable of causing local
disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species applies to wolf populations in the
reindeer herding area (2). It means that in this area the wolf is not a subject to total protection, but
nevertheless the use of indiscriminate trapping methods is prohibited.

Finland has notified the Commission that it makes use of the derogation under Article 16 of the Directive
to authorise the killing of lynx, brown bears and wolves. This Article authorises Member States to derogate
from the provisions of Articles 12 to 15, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the
the species concerned at
derogation is not detrimental
a favourable conservation status, among others,
in particular to crops,
livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property (3).

to prevent serious damage,

to the maintenance of

the populations of

In accordance with Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, the Commission(cid:146)s task is to examine
whether Finland stays within the limits of the rules of the Directive. Compensation for the damages caused
by species is not covered by the provisions of the Directive and may be regulated by national law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. See particularly Articles 12, 15 and 16.
(2) Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
(3) Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

(2001/C 350 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Inspection at GAL Cadispa in the Campania Region

(3 May 2001)

Given the numerous complaints from companies which responded to invitations to tender but which have
only benefited from a minimal amount of Community funding worth millions, will the Commission say
whether it intends to conduct an audit in the GAL Cadispa Consortium in the municipality of San Mauro
Cilento which, via the Campania Region, is a recipient of the Community funding concerned? This funding
is allegedly being used imprudently and irrationally in totally unnecessary expenditure which brings no
benefit to local farmers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission intends to fulfil its control task with regard to the
consortium GAL Cadispa in the municipality of San Mauro Cilento, a beneficiary of Community part-
financing under the Leader II programme of the Campania region for the period 1994-1999.

The Commission is not aware of any irregularities or misuse of Community and national funds by GAL
Cadispa.

In this context it is important to stress that the Leader II Initiative follows a bottom-up approach, not only
to drawing up programmes but also to implementation on the ground, which is entrusted mainly to local
action groups made up of various socio-economic players and private and public partners at local level.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/115

Local groups were selected primarily on the basis of the quality of the action plan drawn up by local
players and their innovative features for testing new approaches to rural development in practical terms.
Responsibility for the selection of the groups and implementation of local measures, including the control
tasks as provided for in Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the
the
interventions of
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) (amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993) (2),
In view of this
responsibility, the Commission has requested additional
information from the Campania region about
possible irregularities by GAL Cadispa.

the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of

lies exclusively with the Campania region.

In the light of the information it receives, the Commission may decide to carry out on-the-spot checks as
provided for in Article 23(2) of the above-mentioned Regulation.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2001/C 350 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1300/01

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Irregular application of the EC-Israel Trade Agreement

(19 April 2001)

In September 1998 Israeli officials confirmed to the European Commission that as a matter of official
policy Israeli Customs was routinely certifying products wholly produced or substantially processed in
Israeli settlements as originating in the State of Israel. In 1999 several cases of fraudulent imports of
settlement products under preferences were uncovered by Member States(cid:146) customs services and presented
to the Commission. In January 2000 we were informed by the Commission that (cid:145)the interpretation of the
territorial scope of application of the agreement adopted by Israel does not coincide with the interpretation
accepted by the European Union(cid:146), and that efforts were under way to (cid:145)find a viable solution (cid:133) without
prejudicing the position of any of the parties(cid:146). In March 2000 the Commission assured us that (cid:145)the
verification procedure for the origin of products makes it possible to determine whether a product may
benefit from the right
treatment even where there is a failure to co-operate in the
determination of origin on the part of the third country concerned(cid:146). According to statements made to the
Israeli press by the responsible Israeli official, in May and June Member States(cid:146) customs services reportedly
carried out the first of several thousand such verification procedures, and Israeli customs was preparing to
reply to Member States(cid:146) queries concerning the origin of settlement products by confirming their
originating status.

to preferential

Has Israel(cid:146)s application of the origin rules protocol according to an interpretation of the territorial clause
that contravenes public international law encumbered or diminished the capacity of the Member States(cid:146)
customs services to detect and prevent customs fraud? As the guardian of the Community Treaties, can the
Commission tell us the extent of the customs fraud perpetrated against the Community that has arisen
over the past years and decades from the failure of Member States to prevent the importation under
preferences of settlement products improperly certified by Israeli customs as originating in the State of
Israel? Does the Commission intend to recover the losses to the Community treasury from the Member
States whose customs services failed to detect and prevent such fraud?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member may know, the Union-Israel Association Agreement establishes a procedure
for the verification of the proof of origin. It is foreseen that the customs authorities of the importing
country returns the origin certificate to the customs authorities of the exporting country if they have
a reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products