WRITTEN QUESTION P-1536/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Commission intervention in favour of the European sugar-refining cartel.
Date: 2002-05-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, Portugal, legal action, powers of the institutions (EU), sugar industry, sugar refining

C 28 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1536/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Commission intervention in favour of the European sugar-refining cartel

Can the Commission confirm that it has intervened against the Portuguese government in support of the
position submitted to the Court of Justice (Case C-282/00) by a sugar refinery situated on the European
mainland?

Does the Commission not consider this intervention to be in flagrant breach of the principle of the
separation of powers and a clear manifestation of the existence of a totally unacceptable democratic deficit
in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Case C-282/00, to which the Honourable Member refers, was brought before the Court of Justice by the
Portuguese court hearing a dispute between two Portuguese sugar refineries, by way of reference for a
preliminary ruling under Article 234 of
the EC Treaty (1).
It concerns the interpretation of various
provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the
Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (2).

Under the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, the parties, the Member
States, the Commission and, where appropriate, the Parliament, the Council and the European Central
Bank are entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court.

In its capacity of guardian of the Treaty, the Commission traditionally and systematically invokes this right,
conferred on it by the Court of Justice, in matters relating to the interpretation of European law. It submits
its observations to the Court in complete independence and objectivity as an amicus curiae, proposing the
solution which, in its view, is the one most compatible with Community law and the general Community
interest. It is for the parties to defend their own positions before the Court of Justice, which obviously may
or may not coincide, fully or partially, with the Commission’s position.

(1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.
(2) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(2003/C 28 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against the most remote regions under the Poseima programme

Under the Poseima regulation and following a parallel reduction in the sugar quotas applying to the
Azores refinery under the Act of Accession, the production quota of that refinery was slashed from 20 000
to 10 000 tonnes; by way of compensation, the per-tonne subsidy was increased.

Since then, however, the Commission has, under Regulation 20/2002 (1), outlawed sugar consignments
from the Azores, while at the same time permitting the dumping of sugar in the islands.

In these circumstances, it is clear that the Poseima programme has placed the Azores sugar industry at a
disadvantage vis-à-vis its counterparts on the European mainland, in total contradiction of the objectives of
Article 299(2) and the Commission’s declared aims.