WRITTEN QUESTION P-1722/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Error in the treatment of compensation payments for sheep farming.
Date: 2001-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, action brought before an administrative court, administrative formalities, citizen-authority relations, competence of the Member States

C 350 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

(2001/C 350 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/01

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Dumping of hazardous waste by the enterprise Espaæola del Zinc S.A. (Cartagena, Spain)

The Spanish Naturalists(cid:146) Association of the South-East (ANSE) has denounced the presence of carcinogenic
products at the industrial waste dumping-ground of the enterprise Espaæola del Zinc S.A. (Cartagena,
Murcia province, Spain). The substances dumped include arsenic, chromium, nickel, lead and others.

Can the Commission ask for information as regards any measures guaranteeing that this dumping-ground
does not constitute a danger to public health or the environment and that the relevant Community
legislation is being correctly applied, with particular reference to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste in
general and Directive 78/319/EEC (2) on the elimination of toxic and hazardous waste?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.

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

(25 July 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has sent the Spanish authorities a request for information on the dumping-ground
mentioned in the Written Question in order to check that Community legislation is being correctly applied
in this instance.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with
Community legislation in this instance.

(2001/C 350 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1722/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Error in the treatment of compensation payments for sheep farming

A sheep farmer in Vilhelmina, Northern Sweden, has been affected by a bureaucratic error concerning the
rejection of his claim for compensation payments and environmental aid for open arable land. On his
(cid:145)SAM(cid:146) form (a 17-page booklet) for 1999 he forgot to fill in a box requiring him to state how many head
of livestock he had. The other 147 box were correctly filled in. When the farmer rang the county council
to correct the mistake he was told it was too late. It is also relevant that on the same day the same sheep
farmer was granted EU aid for sheep farming (the (cid:145)ewe premium(cid:146)) by the same department of the same
authority. It should thus have been obvious that a mistake had been made. The same autumn in which the
application was made, two inspectors had also been at the farm on two occasions and had carried out
a number of checks and measurements on the sheep. The county council therefore knew how many sheep
the farmer had through their other checks. The county council(cid:146)s acknowledgement of receipt of the
application stated that the applicant would be contacted if anything was missing from the application, but
the county council did not do so in this case.

The farmer complained in the first instance to the Swedish Board of Agriculture, but this was inadmissible,
so the complaint was passed on to the county court. The farmer won his case there, but the county
council appealed and the matter is still pending at the administrative court of appeal in Sundsvall.

Can the Commission confirm that the Swedish authorities can and should grant the current aid, since this
was a small administrative error by the applicant and no real irregularity occurred?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/215

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The case mentioned by the Honourable Member is currently under consideration by a Swedish Court. The
Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national
authorities and cannot intervene in a case while a judgement is expected from a national court.

(2001/C 350 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1725/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Structure of, and timescale for, a European energy tax on the basis of enhanced co-operation

At Parliament(cid:146)s hearing of the then Commissioner-designate Mr Bolkestein, I asked him on behalf of the
Environment Committee whether (cid:129) in view of Spain(cid:146)s veto of the introduction of an energy/CO2 tax
throughout the EU (cid:129) he was prepared to use the enhanced co-operation clause in the Treaty. He replied
that he needed a year in order to be able to give an answer. It is now over a year and a half on, and we
have an IGC behind us. Spain remains as strongly opposed as ever, and no decision was taken at Nice to
move from a requirement for unanimity in the area of taxation of energy to deciding by a qualified
majority.

In order to find a way out of this impasse, the Swedish Presidency proposed that agreement first be
reached on the structure of the energy tax. And the Commission recently indicated that it was now
in the area of energy taxation
seriously considering using the enhanced co-operation instrument
(COM(2001) 260). Member States hope to take the first steps in that direction at the Ecofin Council
meeting on 5 June.

Does the Commission intend to ensure that this new structure does not include any exceptions for large
and intensive energy users that go further than those already provided for in its 1997 proposal?

When does the Commission intend to take steps to propose a European energy/CO2 tax on the basis of the
enhanced co-operation clause?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission is pursuing its efforts to get the Council to adopt a Directive to restructure the taxation
of energy products. As recently reiterated in the communication entitled A Sustainable Europe for a Better
World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (1), a directive on energy taxation would
need to be adopted by 2002 if for no other reason than to limit the effects of climate change. Such
a directive is also still needed to reduce distortions in competition due to the very major divergences
between the tax rates and bases which the different Member States apply to energy products. The
Commission therefore supported the Swedish Presidency(cid:146)s efforts to relaunch the discussion of energy
taxes in the Council.

The Swedish Presidency wanted to begin by examining the practical aspects of the energy tax structure.
One of the specific questions raised was that of excise duty exemptions or reductions granted to large-scale
consumers of energy, but there were also others such as the arrangements for taxing electricity. All
Member States encouraged this approach. However, the Commission insisted that any discussion of the tax
structure should be accompanied by a reopening of the debate on future levels of excise duty. Several
Member States share this view. These discussions should continue under the Belgian Presidency.