WRITTEN QUESTION P-3402/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Closure of subsidised company Typopoiitiria Thivas.
Date: 2001-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Structural Funds, agri-foodstuffs, cessation of trading, co-financing, redemption

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/167

According to Article 5, biocidal products can only be authorised if the active substance(s) contained therein
are listed in Annex I or IA and it is established on the basis of a very thorough evaluation of the risks to
human health and the environment
is sufficiently effective and has no
unacceptable effects on the target organism nor on human health or the environment.

the biocidal product

that

For inclusion of an active substance into Annex I or IA, applicants have to submit dossiers containing data
as defined in the Annexes to the Directive, with information on the active substance and at least one
biocidal product. Efficiency and absence of unacceptable effects are again important criteria for decision-
making. According to Annex IIB, the dossier regarding the biocidal product must contain data on the
toxicological and ecotoxicological effects of all substances of concern contained in the product. This
requirement applies also for the dossiers to be submitted for the authorisation of individual biocidal
products.

Neither the Directive nor Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first
phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council on biocidal products (1) define lists of active substances for use in biocidal products. Quite on the
contrary, according to Article 3 of the Regulation, active substances placed on the market before 14 May
2000 must be identified by producers before 28 March 2002. Formulators may also identify such existing
active substances. According to Article 4 of the same Regulation, producers, formulators or associations
wishing to apply for the inclusion in Annex I or IA to the Directive of an existing active substance, must
submit a notification by 28 March 2002. It is therefore the task of the producers or formulators to decide,
based on the definitions and criteria established by the Directive, whether they consider a substance to be
an active substance and whether they want to apply for an inclusion into Annex I or IA.

If chromium compounds used by themselves do not meet the definition of an active substance, they do
not have to be notified or identified. However, if a producer or formulator considers that they do meet the
definitions, he can notify such compounds for inclusion into Annex I or IA, and will then have to provide
all necessary data (including on efficacy) at the latest by 28 March 2004.

In any case, a biocidal product for the preservation of wood containing chromium compounds will have to
be authorised in the light of the criteria established by Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC.
In principle,
chromium containing biocidal products for wood preservation contain the chromium compounds in
hexavalent form, which are classified as dangerous according to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification,
packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2) and hence meet the definition of substances of concern.
These are reduced to chromium (III) compounds only during the fixation process. The dossiers for such
biocidal products will, therefore, have to contain all required information on the chromium compounds,
even if they are not considered to be active substances.

The Commission considers that a correct application of Directive 98/8/EC will avoid distortion of
competition and barriers to trade for wood preservatives containing chromium compounds, because it will
guarantee an improved harmonisation of the different authorisations, which currently exist in various
Member States.

(1) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(2) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.

(2002/C 147 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3402/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Closure of subsidised company Typopoiitiria Thivas

(5 December 2001)

Typopoiitiria Thivas, a company founded pursuant to Regulations (EEC) 355/77 (1) and 866/90 (2), and
jointly funded by the Greek State (Ministry for Agriculture) and the Commission (Commission decisions
156/28.6.1989 and 2742/24.11.1992), has announced that it is suspending operations less than a decade
since it started up.

C 147 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

In its judgment No. 1631/2001, the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance recognised that there
had been a breach of certain articles of EU competition rules (Articles 81, 82, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty)
and ruled that the Greek State should pay compensation to the company as it had been prevented by
ministerial decisions and special market policy provisions laid down by the Greek Administration from
selling its products in the Attica Basin, thereby suffering damage, during the period 1994-1999.

Since Typopoiitiria Thivas is a subsidised company, if it is closed down less than a decade since it started
up, the Commission will ask the Greek State to pay back the subsidies that it has received.

In view of the fact that the Greek courts have already ruled that the damage to the company which has
forced it to suspend operations is not due to negligence or improper conduct in the running of the
company but to unlawful acts by government agencies which broke EU competition rules, is the company
required to pay back the subsidies it has received?

(1) OJ L 51, 23.2.1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission has already been informed by the company ‘Typopiitiria Thivas S.A.’ of the dispute it is
involved in with the Greek authorities. On 23 November 2001 it wrote to those authorities, asking for
explanations and for corrective action to be taken so as to enable the company to operate normally.

On the basis of the answer the Commission is expecting from the Greek authorities, it will decide whether
to apply Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards
coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations
of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) dealing with the recovery
of sums unduly received. The Commission is particularly concerned that the schemes part-financed by the
Structural Funds should be operational and not dormant.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2002/C 147 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3403/01

by Thierry Jean-Pierre (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Information on EU external aid

It was emphasised in the annual report on implementation of the Commission’s external aid programmes
in 2000 that reform of the management of EU external aid was under way and would begin to bear fruit
in 2002.

The main objectives of this reform are to reduce the time lapse between commitments and payments and
to decentralise responsibilities from the Commission to the Delegations in the beneficiary countries and
territories.

In addition, the Commission’s EuropeAid Agency has published its first Annual Report, which includes
details of a reform process consisting in the establishment of a single agency with responsibility for
managing the whole operational cycle of the EuropeAid projects and the granting of specific powers to the
active Delegations, with a view to improving the Commission’s overall capacity in managing programmes
on a country-by-country basis.