WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/01 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Problems relating to the EU-wide harmonisation of approval of plant protection products for indicated uses only (particularly in horticulture).
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, approximation of laws, horticulture, marketing standard, national implementing measure, plant health product, restriction on competition

C 147 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

It recently adopted a proposal for a Council framework decision on the basis of Article 34(2)(b) of the
Treaty on European Union (1) with a view to ensuring that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all
Member States with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties which could give rise to the surrender
of persons in custody and could improve and encourage judicial cooperation by removing potential
obstacles. All Member States should ensure that behaviour such as public incitement to violence or hatred
as well as public insults or threats to individuals or groups for a racist or xenophobic purpose are
punishable as criminal offences.

The religious or ethnic origin of the perpetrators and instigators of racist or xenophobic acts and of
accessories thereto should not have any actual effect on the way the facts themselves are judged. The
opposite would be tantamount to discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic group.

(1) COM(2001) 664 final.

(2002/C 147 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3510/01

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Possible distortions of competition in the forestry sector in the Federal Republic of Germany

In the letter dated 3 February 2000 from the European Commission to the Foreign Minister of the Federal
Republic of Germany, signed by Commissioner Franz Fischler (SG(2000) D/101191) and dealing with
‘State aid No NN 136/99 7 Germany (Brandenburg); state aid in the form of services provided to forest
owners below cost price’, the Commission noted that in the case in point the aid granted was consistent
with the provisions of the EC Treaty, but went on to state that it was reviewing its policy on state aid in
the forestry sector and reserved the right, in the future, to propose appropriate measures, pursuant to
Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty.

Could the Commission state what the outcome of this policy review has been and what action it has taken,
or what action it plans to take, in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission has not yet drawn conclusions as to a review of its policy concerning state aids in the
forestry sector. The Commission is still working on this issue. At this stage, it is not possible to give
indications for the timing or the outcome of such a review.

(2002/C 147 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/01

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Problems relating to the EU-wide harmonisation of approval of plant protection products for

indicated uses only (particularly in horticulture)

Approval for indicated uses only in the field of plant protection has been in force in Germany since
1 July 2001. This means that plant protection products can be used only for crops for which there is a
clearly defined indication. The new rules are causing considerable problems for horticulture in particular,

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/195

since a series of gaps in the list of indications have yet to be closed. This shows that the transitional period
was too short and should have been extended. This was not done, and the result is that Germany is now
applying a rule which is to be welcomed from the point of view of the environment and consumers but
which is causing economic problems for producers, may be encouraging illegal practices and could lead to
an unintended transfer of production. Given that not all EU Member States have transposed rules regarding
approval for indicated uses only into national law or apply such rules themselves, products are reaching
Germany under internal market conditions which have been treated in the producer country with plant
protection products banned in Germany.

1.
Does the Commission share the view that the fact that approval of plant protection products for
indicated uses only is being introduced at different times in the various countries represents a distortion of
competition, in this case to the detriment of German producers?

2. Would the Commission have any legal objections if Germany were to suspend implementation of the
rules brought into force on 1 July 2001 in cases where there are gaps in the list of indications which
cannot be closed in the short term, and adopt legal provisions allowing strictly limited transitional periods?
If so, what are these objections?

3.
How will the Commission ensure that the desired harmonisation of legal provisions does not lead to
similar contradictions between Member States in the future and does not thereby pose problems for the
internal market and the necessary EU-wide implementation of harmonisation measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

According to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of
1.
plant protection products on the market (1), Member States are obliged to apply the ‘Uniform Principles for
evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products’ (as provided for in Annex VI to the Directive)
only for those substances, which are included in Annex I. Nevertheless, there are Member States that apply
the same criteria already now on a voluntary basis for other substances, as they undergo assessments in
national review programmes. This is the case not only in Germany, but also in several Nordic countries,
and in Portugal. For this and other reasons which are outlined under Point 3 below, the Commission does
not share the opinion of the Honourable Member that this discrepancy leads to a significant distortion of
competition in agriculture to the disadvantage of German farmers.

2.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for
the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) acknowledged that, if necessary, it may be appropriate to re-examine
certain uses which are essential and for which there is no alternative to protect efficiently plants or plant
products. The Commission considers this provision, and possibly also the use of the derogation provided
in Article 8(4) of the Directive 91/414/EEC, as more suitable measures to deal with urgent pest problems
than the proposal of the Honourable Member.

The Commission has no means at

3.
time to quantify exactly the effect of an earlier
implementation of the uniform principles on the common market. It is however, not likely that the
impact would be significant, for two reasons:

this

7 firstly, already now, all Member States authorise plant protection products under their national
schemes with a view to minimise risk. Although current rules and criteria may vary slightly in those
cases where Annex VI does not yet apply, it is unlikely that authorities come to totally incompatible
results in their assessments;

C 147 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

7 secondly, also in future, not all substances included in Annex I will be authorised in all Member States.
It may be, for example, that a certain active substance poses a risk to groundwater in the Netherlands,
but it can be used safely in certain crops in Spain. A completion of the European review programme
will, therefore, not result in a totally equal inventory of substances used in all Member States and there
will also in future be some substances which are available to farmers in certain countries but not in
others.

The Commission expects that a major influence towards levelling the playing field will be the withdrawal
from the market of a significant number of active substances in July 2003. This aspect was also addressed
in the Commissions Report to Parliament and Council made in June 2001 (3).

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.
(3) COM(2001) 444 final.

(2002/C 147 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3519/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Gypsies and travellers 7 Danger of social exclusion in the EU

Projects submitted to the Commission for grant funding, aimed at developing and improving the education
and training of gypsies and travellers (including fairground, circus and bargee groups) have been rejected
by the external evaluators.

Has the Commission sought to work with the promoters of these projects to help them prepare project
bids which would meet the criteria for financial support, thus allowing them to assist gypsies and
travellers? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission has funded a significant number of projects aimed at developing and improving the
education and training of gypsies and travellers (including fairground, circus and bargee groups).

As this target group is a priority within the Socrates Programme (Comenius) funding has been allocated
every year to projects promoted by organisations active in the field since the earliest years of the
programme. Significant numbers of projects have also been funded under both the Leonardo Da Vinci and
Youth Programmes.

Commission decisions to fund or reject project proposals are based on an independent, external evaluation
carried out by experts in the field. Where new project proposals are not selected for funding promoters
receive a letter outlining the reasons underlying the decision and are encouraged to seek advice from the
appropriate services of the Commission, before submitting a new application

(2002/C 147 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/01

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Greece

In Greece today, particularly in the North, there are a number of minorities. Some of them are ethnic
minorities (Turks, Macedonians), others are cultural and linguistic minorities (Vlachs, Arvanites and Roma).