WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Delays and deductions in the payment of Community agricultural aid to Greece and infringement of Community law by the Agricultural Bank of Greece.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, EU aid, Greece, agricultural bank, aid to agriculture, deadline for payment, infringement procedure (EU)

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/99

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission is currently not considering proposing the introduction of such a system as that outlined
by the Honourable Member.

The main problem facing the international removals industry relates to the VAT rules determining the
place of supply of the service, which they provide. The place of taxation of intracommunity transport
services carried out for non-taxable persons is where the transport starts. This problem is also highlighted
in many responses from Industry to the Internal Market Strategy for Services (1).

The Commission does acknowledge that the Internal Market would function better with a VAT system
based on the country of origin. However, such a system does not seem to be a politically feasible option in
the short term, considering the lack of progress in Council on a Commission program of 1996 with
proposals for a gradual transition to a VAT system based on country of origin. The Commission, however,
retains the idea of such a definite system of taxation as a long term Community goal.

In its new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system in the short term (2), which was widely
welcomed by the Member States when presented in the Council, the Commission identified the need for a
modification of the rules determining the place of supply of services as one of the issues to be addressed.
The Commission will make an effort to come up with a proposal concerning the place of supply of
services as soon as possible, in 2003 at the earliest, taking into account the problems addressed by the
international removals industry.

(1) COM(2000) 888 final.
(2) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2002/C 205 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Delays and deductions in the payment of Community agricultural aid to Greece and infringement

of Community law by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

Significant delays in the payment of Community aid to farmers by the newly established payments agency
(Opekepe) in Greece have caused them financial loss and triggered protest demonstrations. For example,
while Community aid of EUR 924,54 million for 2001 (EUR 337,5 million for wheat, EUR 190,76 million
for olive oil, EUR 249,550 million for cotton and EUR 146,73 million for tobacco) has been received by
the Greek public administration, it has not yet been paid over to the farmers.

In view of the fact that the Commission has known for some years now of these delays and also of the
amounts illegally and improperly withheld by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) and other agencies,
and given that, according to the answer given to question E-2923/01 (1), ‘the Commission is looking into
this matter within the scope of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty’:

1. What urgent steps will the Commission take to ensure that matters are remedied and that EAGGF

appropriations are paid immediately to the farmers?

2. What steps will the Commission take to ensure ‘full payment’ to beneficiaries as laid down by Article 2
of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (2) establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy?

3. What is the total financial loss (reduction), since under Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) there is a system
of financial penalties for expenditure effected after the deadlines laid down, and therefore a loss of
appropriations for Greece?

C 205 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

4. What are the latest developments in the case concerning the ELGA premiums (case C-355/00)
pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, since ELGA is now attempting to
bring in a new increase of 50 % to insurance contributions to cover
its excessive debt of
EUR 102 714 million?

5. Does the Commission intend to examine the ATE’s operating status as a state bank and the procedures
it uses (e.g. the requirement to give power of attorney for the withdrawal of arbitrary deductions from
the farmers’ accounts), on the basis of allegations made about the infringement of Community rules
and principles concerning the free market and fair competition, state aid and the protection of
consumers (farmers) in the single market?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 194.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 113.
(3) OJ L 39, 17.2.1996, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

As regards points 1, 2 and 5 of their question the Honourable Members are asked to refer to the
Commission’s answer to written question E-0128/02 from Mr Alavanos (1).

As regards point 3, the corrections for the 2001 financial year applied under Commission Regulation (EC)
No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly booking
of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (2) amounted to € 1 708 570,96, of which € 630 301,74 related to the period
from 1 July 2001 to 15 October 2001.

For the current financial year (2002), Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1577/2001 of 1 August 2001, provides for the calculation and application of the
reductions based on a timetable covering expenditure in the period from 16 October 2001 to
31 March 2002.

The procedure for calculating, proposing and defining the corrections for this period has not started yet. It
will be finished by the beginning of August 2002.

As regards point 4 of the Honourable Members’ question, the Court of Justice fixed an oral hearing on case
C-355/00 for 7 March 2002.

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 148.
(2) OJ L 39, 17.2.1996.

(2002/C 205 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Banana directives

There are persistent reports in the British press that the European Union is forever delving into every nook
and cranny of life through the use of unnecessary directives. Others claim that these reports are Euro-
myths. One of the most persistent reports concerns the sale of bananas.

Can the Commission indicate whether it is true that all bananas sold within the European Union must
conform to certain standards including degree of curvature and size, and, if so, to specify the relevant
directive and the principal requirements that retailers of bananas are required to observe.