WRITTEN QUESTION P-1507/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission. Extension of the financing for certain nut and/or locust bean quality and marketing improvement plans approved in 1990.
Date: 2001-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, nut

C 350 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

The Quebec Summit did not lead to speeding up the integration process of the Americas, as had been
expected beforehand. Rather it limited itself to confirming the scenario established at the Santiago de Chile
Summit (free trade by 1 January 2006). At the Summit the challenges of this process became clear
obtaining fast track authority; the opening of the American agricultural market; harmonisation of the
differing interests of 34 countries; environmental and labour questions, etc.

The Community is the main investor, main commercial partner and the most important donor for the
Southern common market (Mercosur) countries. The negotiations between the Community and Mercosur
go far beyond mere trade issues. Negotiations are proceeding at their own speed without any interference
from the American integration process.

(2001/C 350 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1507/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Extension of the financing for certain nut and/or locust bean quality and marketing improvement

plans approved in 1990

On 19 March 2001 the Council of EU Agriculture Ministers adopted Regulation (EC) No 558/2001 (1),
pursuant to which the financing for all nut and/or locust bean quality and marketing improvement plans
which by the year 2000 had been in operation for 10 years may be extended for a maximum period of
one year.

that regulation states that

Article 1 of
the extension applies solely to producer organisations with
improvement plans approved in 1990, whilst it is specified in Article 2 that aid is restricted to areas for
which an aid application has been submitted in respect of the tenth year of the plan.

The producer organisations with improvement plans approved in 1990 include four Spanish ones. Two of
these (Abertal and Producciones de Frutos Secos Asociados) are based in Catalonia and they have merged
with two other producer organisations whose improvement plans were approved after 1990 (Abertal with
Arboreto, whose improvement plan was approved on 9 February 1996, and Producciones de Frutos Secos
Asociados with Profusal, whose plan was approved on 3 May 1996).

According to the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food interprets the above
regulation, those two producer organisations (Arboreto and Profusal) may not submit an application for an
extension of financing in respect of the areas included in their improvement plan which have been under
the scheme for 10 years, in view of the fact that the original organisations (Abertal and Producciones de
Frutos Secos Asociados) have ceased to exist, for which reason the provisions of Article 1 of Regulation
(EC) No 558/2001 are not applicable since the new organisations with which they merged date from after
1990.

In the light of the above facts, would the Commission say whether or not the producer organisations
which submitted an improvement plan in 1990 and which subsequently merged with another, more
recent producer organisation (which has already submitted an application for aid in respect of areas which
have been under the scheme for 10 years) may submit an application for an extension of their funding
(submitted, that is, by the new producer organisation) for those areas and in respect of operations carried
out in those areas prior to 15 June 2001?

(1) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001, p. 1.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/173

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 558/2001 of 19 March 2001 extending for a period of up to one year the
financing of certain quality and marketing improvement plans approved under Title IIa of Regulation (EEC)
No 1035/72, enables recognised producer organisations, whose improvement plans were approved in
1990, to request continued financing of their plans for up to one year and until 15 June 2001 at the
latest.

This right is maintained for a producer organisation whose improvement plan was approved in 1990, and
which ceased to exist following its merger with a new organisation whose plan dates from after 1990.

Thus areas within a plan which was approved in 1990, and which subsequently have been included
in/transferred to another plan, retain eligibility for an eleventh year of aid under Regulation (EC) No 558/
2001, and up to 15 June 2001 at the latest, as long as all other conditions pertaining to the eligibility for
aid remain fulfilled.

(2001/C 350 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Nuclear waste

On 23 April 2001, the Danish media reported the adoption by the Russian Duma of a proposal enabling
Russia to import nuclear waste from a number of EU Member States. What are the implications of existing
EU legislation regarding Russia(cid:146)s wish to set up nuclear waste disposal sites and to import and store waste
for payment? Will the Commission also say whether, in the light of the disturbing developments in Russia,
there are plans to revise the current provisions and lay down common rules to ensure that extremely
hazardous nuclear waste is always handled in the safest possible way?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Euratom legislation requires the Commission to authorise exports of nuclear materials from any Member
State to a third country. The Commission has to ensure compliance with international agreements, verify
supply requirements and satisfy itself that the general interests of the Community will be safeguarded. In
cases where nuclear material is sent for reprocessing and subsequently returns to the Community, the
Commission(cid:146)s authorisation is not required, but the Commission has to be informed.

Export of radioactive material falls under the scope of Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying
down basic safety standards for the protection of health of workers and the general public against dangers
arising from ionising radiation (1). This provides for principles of justification, optimisation and dose
limitation as well as reporting obligations that must be respected by Member States.

Under Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of
radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (2), Member States are
prohibited from exporting shipments of radioactive waste to third countries that do not have the
(cid:145)technical, legal or administrative resources(cid:146) to manage it safely. It would therefore be for the relevant
authorities in Member States to assess whether this condition is met before any nuclear waste could be
shipped to the Russian Federation. Similar rules will apply to any shipments of spent fuel with the entry
into force of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste
(18 June 2001).