WRITTEN QUESTION E-3271/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission. Barriers to the export of blood oranges.
Date: 2001-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Australia, Italy, World Trade Organisation, citrus fruit, export (EU), import restriction, originating product, plant health control

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/213

(2002/C 134 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Lake Kourna

in the vicinity of
On the island of Crete plans are afoot
Georgoupoli. This project represents an important step in upgrading the environment in the region and is
to receive co-funding under the Cohesion Fund. The site chosen for this plant is near to Lake Kourna
which was included in Natura 2000.

to build a biological purification plant

Given that this is a necessary and particularly useful project, can the Commission confirm that locating the
biological purification plant on this site will not affect the quality of the water of the lake or damage the
environment? Have alternative regions been considered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Greek authorities asked the Commission for a Cohesion Fund contribution of about € 8,6 million for a
waste-water treatment plant in the Georgioupoli region.

The Commission decided when examining the case-file that the project could not be considered a priority
within the meaning of Council Directive 91/271/CEE of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water
treatment (1). Moreover, it did not offer the guarantees needed to protect Lake Kournas, which is close to
this area and included under code number GR4340010 in the list proposed by Greece for the Natura 2000
European ecological network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). The Commission has accordingly rejected this application
for assistance.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3271/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Barriers to the export of blood oranges

The Australian and Japanese markets are displaying a growing interest
in blood oranges, produced
exclusively in Sicily, but certain legal provisions in force in the phytosanitary area governing the handling
of citrus products during transport currently make it impossible for Italy to export its famous blood
oranges. With the assistance of their government, however, Spanish orange producers have entered into an
agreement with the Australian authorities, and their dominance of that overseas market as a consequence
almost amounts to a monopoly.

Could the Commission say what steps it can take to avoid the Italian blood orange sector being further
penalised in the international distribution network?

C 134 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

It is the right of importing countries to set their own level of phytosanitary protection, within the
constraints laid down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). It is the responsability of the individual Member State to give the
phytosanitary guarantees requested by the third country. The Commission is involved where it appears that
international rules are not being adhered to or the provisions of the SPS Agreement or other relevant
agreements such as the International Plant Protection Convention have been breached. At present, the
Commission is seeking further information necessary to assess the case.

(2002/C 134 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Spanish fishing vessels prevented from unloading in the port of La Rochelle (France)

At the end of October, fishermen from Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country complained that the
attitude adopted by the French authorities, had enabled French fishermen to prevent 37 fishing vessels
from the above-mentioned Spanish regions from unloading their catch of anchovy in the port of La
Rochelle.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that such a thing does not happen
again and to guarantee the free movement of goods, as provided for in the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3148/01 by Mr Valdivielso
de Cué (1).

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 233.

(2002/C 134 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3287/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Refunds for use of potato and cereal starches and aid for potato starch

In accordance with the Court of Auditors’ annual report, € 900 million have been allocated from the
Community budget to refunds for use of potato and cereal starches and to aid for potato starch. This is
actually,
in a very indirect manner, the only Community instrument relating to potatoes, despite the
importance of such crops in overall agricultural production. Since 1994, when the Council rejected the
Commission’s proposal, the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes has been
placed on the back burner.

Against this background, will the Commission specify:

D the annual amount of resources allocated from the Community budget to refunds and aid for potato

starch since 1994 and the relevant breakdown by Member State?

D the total number of beneficiaries by Member State and the number of companies which are

beneficiaries (stating the names of the companies and the amount of aid allocated to each)?