WRITTEN QUESTION P-3274/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Aquaculture development plans in Ireland.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, FIFG, Ireland, State aid, application of EU law, aquaculture, competition law, control of State aid, environmental law

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/245

(2002/C 115 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime

The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime has been in force since 1988.
Greece is one of the few EU countries which have signed the Convention but have yet to implement it: this
means that it has no system of State compensation for the victims of violent crime, which is one of the
basic objectives of the Convention.

Given that Greece has signed the Convention in question, will the Commission say:

1. Can the victims of violent crime within the meaning of the Convention apply for compensation, even

though no system of State compensation has yet been set-up?

2. Does it intend to ask the Member States or the EU applicant countries to ratify and implement the

Convention in question?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The signature, as such, of the Convention to which the Honourable Member refers does not give victims of
violent crime the possibility to apply for state compensation.

In 1999, the Commission submitted a Communication to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic
and Social Committee entitled ‘Crime victims in the European Union 6 reflexions on standards and
action’ (1). One of
the
the recommendations of
Convention in question by all Member States.

this Communication related to the ratification of

As concerns compensations to crime victims by the offender, the Council framework decision of 15 March
2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings requires that victims of criminal acts shall be
entitled to obtain a decision on compensation by the offender in the course of criminal proceedings.

In this context the Commission would also like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to its
recently adopted Green Paper on compensation to crime victims (2). This paper launches a public
consultation on possible action to be taken, at Community level, for improving the possibilities for crime
victims to obtain compensations from the state. Potential actions outlined in the Paper include to establish
a minimum standard for state compensation in the Union and to facilitate access to state compensation in
cross-border situations. Following an analysis of the comments received on the paper, the Commission will
assess the possibility for presenting a legislative proposal during 2002.

(1) COM(1999) 349 final.
(2) COM(2001) 536 final.

(2002/C 115 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3274/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Aquaculture development plans in Ireland

The Irish Government has announced funding of over € 73 million for aquaculture developments under
the National Development Plan 2000-2006. In a reply to a previous written question dated 30 March
2001, the Commission outlined that some € 25 million are being contributed by the EU via the FIFG in
the operational programmes for the same period.

C 115 E/246

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission has also issued letters of warning to the Irish Government for breaches of EU law
regarding aquaculture developments in designated SACs and SPAs such as Lough Swilly and Trawbreaga
Bay in Donegal and Kenmare Bay in Co Kerry.

The Minister responsible for the Heritage in Ireland, Sile de Valera, recently reiterated that the Government
had no intention of conducting an EIA or a baseline study to assess the effects of unfettered aquaculture
developments in the Lough Swilly area.

How does the Commission reconcile these two facts and would it consider suspending funding of these
developments via the FIFG to ensure that it does not indirectly assist in further spoiling environmental sites
of European importance?

Could the Commission help the local Lough Swilly campaign group fund a baseline study and through
what means?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The aquaculture development in Ireland is funded under the Regional programmes for the South-East (SE)
and Border Midland and West (BMW). Loch Swilly area is included in the latter.

Aquaculture development programme is a sub-measure under the Fishery harbours, gaeltach/Island
harbours and aquaculture measure, which belongs to the Local enterprise priority.

The total expenditure for the Aquaculture sub-measure for the BMW programme is € 46,28 million, of
which € 16,07 million of the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) funding.

The National Development Plan for Ireland states that according to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general rules on structural funds (1), Community co-financed
times be compatible with Community policies on environment, equal
expenditures should at all
issues are also used for
opportunities, competition and public procurement rules. These horizontal
defining more detailed criteria for selecting projects as outlined in each programme complement.

Concerning the aquaculture measure under the BMW regional programme complement, it is stated that
the projects will be selected on the basis of their compliance with statutory licensing and planning
regulations and Community regulations on poverty, rural development, environment and gender equality.

Additionally, the BMW programming complement states that on balance the Aquaculture sub-measure
should have a positive impact on the environment as projects will be selected on the basis of promoters’
compliance with planning, including environmental impact assessment (EIA) and Community regulations.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (2), as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3),
includes intensive fish farming in its Annex II, that is projects for which the Member States shall determine
through: a case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project
shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the same Directive.

According to 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 (4) on the FIFG, the
promoters of intensive fish-farming projects shall forward the information provided for in Annex IV to
Directive 85/337/EEC to the management authority together with their application for public aid. The

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/247

management authority shall decide whether the project must be submitted for assessment under Articles 5
to 10 of
that Directive. Where the public aid is granted the cost of collecting information on
environmental impact and any assessment costs shall be eligible for assistance from the FIFG.

Consequently, only when it has been properly assessed in respect of environmental impact, an intensive
fish farming project can be granted a FIFG financial aid.

The Honourable Member’s attention is also drawn to the obligation of Member States to ensure that
aquaculture projects and activities respect the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (5) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (6). These inter alia include a requirement to
carry out an appropriate assessment of plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on sites
protected pursuant to these directives.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(4) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(6) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 115 E/265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Exemption from prescription charges

In the UK, people suffering from certain illnesses (such as diabetes) are exempt from prescription charges
for their medication.

However, this exemption is applied to some illnesses and not to others. For example, thalassemia and
sickle cell anaemia sufferers must still pay prescription charges.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has stated that the current situation is unfair and needs updating.
However, to date the UK Government has refused to change the law.

Can the Commission indicate if there is any EU legislation that covers this subject?

If not, does the Commission intend to legislate on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

It must be observed, first of all, that, according to settled case-law, Community law does not detract from
the powers of the Member States to organise their social security systems.

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is therefore for the legislation of each Member
State to determine, first, the conditions concerning the right or duty to be insured with a social security
scheme and, second, the conditions for entitlement to benefits.

As there is no Community legislation on prescription charges, the rules concerning the reimbursement or
free provision of certain medical treatments fall therefore within the responsibility of the Member States.
The Commission has no plans to propose such legislation.