WRITTEN QUESTION P-3144/01 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Delays in the transposition of directives.
Date: 2001-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EU Member State, access to EU information, activity report, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, single market

C 93 E/218

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(2002/C 93 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Aid for the clam sector in Languedoc (France)

Representatives of the clam sector in the region of Languedoc-Roussillon (France) have told me of their
concern that they are unable to benefit from aid under the FIFG owing to a strict interpretation of
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements
regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.

Can the Commission clarify whether this sector can benefit from FIFG aid for seeding clams?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December
1999, laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the
fisheries sector (1), but the question implies that this problem relates to clam breeding rather than to sea
fishing. At all events the Commission can confirm that neither repopulating (fisheries) nor seeding
(aquaculture) are regarded as structural measures; consequently, they are not eligible for Community
structural aid.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2002/C 93 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3144/01

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Subject: Delays in the transposition of directives

Further to the question put to the Commission in June 2000, I would now draw attention to recent public
statements to the effect that there has been little or no change in the situation and that Member States are
still delaying the transposition of directives relating to the internal market. It is regrettable that the
harmonisation of the economies of the fifteen Member States is proceeding at so slow a pace, thereby
jeopardising Europe’s competitiveness at a time when the world economy is hovering on the brink of
recession.

The fact that Portugal is one of the Member States that has been most reluctant (12 % of EU legislation on
the internal market not yet implemented) is a source of concern.

Will the Commission provide a comparative study of the situation in each Member State, indicating the
number of directives whose transposition has been delayed in the case of each Member State?

Will the Commission also provide a list of the directives not yet transposed in Portugal?

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/219

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

The Commission publishes information about the state of transposition of Internal Market directives by
Member States in its bi-annual Internal Market Scoreboard. The November 2001 issue of the Scoreboard is
sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat General and is also available at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/score/index.htm. Information about the transposition
of all Community directives is published in the Commission’s Annual Report on Monitoring the
Application of Community Law (1).

As at 15 October 2001, Portugal’s deficit for transposition of Internal Market Directives stood at 2.5 %.
With this score, which is slightly above the Community average of 2 %, Portugal ranks 10th of all Member
States. While Portugal has considerably improved its performance over the last twelve months, it still has
some way to go to meet the target set by the European Council of 98.5 % or more of all Internal Market
directives transposed by the time of the Barcelona European Council (15/16 March 2002). Currently, only
Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden meet this target.

At present, 10 % of Internal Market directives have not yet been transposed by all Member States. The
Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that this so-called ‘fragmentation factor’ reduces the
impact of the Internal Market on economic conditions and citizens’ rights by creating unnecessary legal
uncertainty. Responsibility for this has to be shared by all Member States, who need to make a concerted
effort to honour legal obligations which they have entered into when these outstanding directives were
adopted. The Commission has launched infringement proceedings for all cases of non-transposition.

A list of Internal Market directives for which Portugal has not yet communicated implementing national
measures to the Commission is also sent direct to the Honourable member and to Parliament’s Secretariat
General. This list reflects the latest available information as of 20 November 2001.

(1) Eighteenth Report of 2000: COM(2001) 309 final. Volume I.

(2002/C 93 E/265)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3194/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Thessaloniki underground: information on the outcome of the project and its inclusion in the

Third CSF

Once again I would like to put a question on the subject of the Thessaloniki underground, since the
Commission has been unable to provide relevant information on the progress of the project, either to the
Committee on Petitions, where I raised the issue, or in its answers to my questions, stating on every
occasion that the Greek Government, which has not yet submitted the financing plan, was responsible for
the project’s delay.

With particular reference to the statement in September 2001 by the former Minister for the Environment,
Physical Planning and Public Works that a bill would be introduced in the Greek Parliament dealing with
any modifications to be made to the contract adopted in 1999:

Can the Commission answer the following:

G Has all the requisite information finally been sent by the Greek Government to the Commission and
what developments have there been with regard to funding and, more generally, the progress of the
project and the removal of legal delays?

G Is the Greek Parliament’s readoption of the bill, amending the terms of the contract signed back in

1999, consistent with Community rules?