WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delays in the further development of a restrictive fisheries policy as a result of attempts to influence officials and deferring of decisions.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, common fisheries policy, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, personnel administration, power of initiative

C 309 E/122

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

means of payment which should be modern, rapid, reliable and offered at low cost. These more modern
payment methods should cover credit cards, credit and debit transfers, direct debits and other electronic
payment instruments, such as mobile payments, both for face-to-face and on-line commerce.

The Commission does not intend to specifically support the use of cheques in relation to other means of
payments, especially as cheques are considered a rather inefficient and outdated payment instrument. In
addition, there is no obligation for accepting a cheque as a payment. This policy was also taken by the
Council and the Parliament in adopting the Regulation (EEC) No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 on
cross-border payments in euro (1). According to recital 8 of the Regulation the non-discrimination principle
(equal charges for cross-border and national payments) does not apply to cheques as they are by nature
not processed as efficiently as other means of payments, in particular electronic payments.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Use of the euro

Which countries outside of the twelve have been authorised to issue euro coins, and what procedure is
necessary for such authorisation?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Vatican City State, the Republic of San Maríno and the Principality of Monaco have been authorised to
issue, under certain conditions, euro coins on the basis of monetary agreements concluded on behalf of the
Community, respectively by Italy for both the Vatican City State (1) and the Republic of San Maríno (2) and
France for the Principality of Monaco (3).

(1) OJ C 299, 25.10.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 209, 27.7.2001, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 142, 31.5.2002, p. 59.

(2002/C 309 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Delays in the further development of a restrictive fisheries policy as a result of attempts to

influence officials and deferring of decisions

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the shaping of European fisheries policy continues to be affected
by different views and demands, with, on the one hand, many fearing that sea fish stocks are rapidly
diminishing as a consequence of overfishing, whilst, on the other hand, the economies of some Member
States (cid:1) and in particular Spain and Portugal (cid:1) are overly dependent on fishing being maintained or even
expanded?

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/123

Does the Commission agree that it is appropriate, with a view to pursuing a restrained fisheries
2.
policy, that those sections of the administration concerned with this policy should be as little liable as
possible to be influenced by economic interests and political pressure from Member States with the
greatest interest in maintaining fishing at as high a level as possible?

3.
On what grounds was Steffen Smidt, the Danish official criticised by the Spanish Government,
removed from his post as Director-General for Fisheries on 21 April, on full pay, bearing in mind that he
had been in the post for less than three years and, prior to being removed from office, had not expressed
any wish for a change of post?

For what reason did the Commission did not proceed in April with taking decisions on the reform of

4.
fisheries policy?

Has pressure been put by the Spanish Government on members of the Commission and/or officials
5.
with a view to weakening or obstructing a restrictive fisheries policy or revising the policy in Spain’s
favour, as stated publicly on television by the Spanish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

Does the Commission intend to restore its credibility by making it absolutely clear, both in terms of
6.
the decisions that it takes and the make-up of the administration, that there can be no question of giving
in to pressure from one or a number of interested Member States to revise the necessary proposed policy?

Source: Algemeen Dagblad, 1 May 2002.

(2002/C 309 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Fisheries

Can the Commission confirm or deny reports that it postpones its internal debate on the reform of the
common fisheries policy at the request of the Presidency of the Council?

Can the Commission confirm that it does not consider its role to be the secretariat of the Council and will
it, in future, resist attempts from the Council to direct its work and undermine its right of initiative under
the Treaty?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1430/02 and E-1563/02
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

1.
It is correct and it is not surprising that there are very different views between and within Member
States on the shaping of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Following a thorough consultation process,
the Commission has identified the European interest and acted accordingly. This has resulted in the reform
proposals sent to Council and Parliament.

2.
Yes. Not only with this policy but with all policies. Every Commission official is required, under
Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, to ‘carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of
the Communities in mind; he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority,
organisation or person outside his institution’. The Commission attaches great importance to the respect of
this provision.

3.
The decision to replace Mr Smidt has to be seen in the context of the Commission’s mobility policy
for senior officials. When Mr Smidt heard last autumn that his name had been mentioned in the context of
this year’s major rotation exercise of high officials, on 25 November 2001 he wrote a letter to the Head of