WRITTEN QUESTION P-2040/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Change in financial structures.
Date: 2002-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, United States, euro area, financial statistics, financing method

C 92 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

The reason why a second, more substantial payment (maximum EUR 24 720) has not yet been made, can
be explained as follows:

(cid:1) The Specific agreement for this project has been accepted and signed by the Financial intermediary on
15 January 2000. As a consequence,
the deadline for presenting the Feasibility study and all
documentary evidence was 15 July 2000. After a number of extension requests, made by the
Beneficiary and his consultants to exceed this deadline, the Beneficiary finally made its payment
request through the Financial intermediary, Investitions-Bank NRW on 12 February 2001. This request
unfortunately was not accompanied by the necessary documentation; among others neither proofs of
payment of claimed expenses nor details about tasks executed by experts were presented. On 4 April
2001 the Commission asked the FI to provide this additional information. Only on 20 January 2002
did the Commission receive a part of the requested information. Regrettably, there was another delay
before the Commission forwarded a reminder to the Beneficiary (through the FI) on 24 June 2002 for
the remaining documentation.

(cid:1) The Commission will make a full payment regarding the preparation of the Feasibility study within
60 days after receipt of the complete documentation concerning the costs of this Study as requested in
its fax dated 24 June 2002.

(cid:1) The Commission recommends that the Beneficiary submits as quickly and completely as possible, with
the help of the Financial intermediary, the financial documentation concerning the real costs of the
Feasibility study incurred by the Beneficiary and all other information as requested in its fax dated
24 June 2002.

The text so far relates to the Facility 2 project. (J2Invschup)

Turning to the Facility 3 project (J3Invschup) whilst it was accepted by the Steering Committee on
27 March 2002 with a grant of EUR 40 825, the Commission cannot proceed with this payment before
the Facility 2 project has been finalised (see article 6.2 of the Specific Agreement).

(2003/C 92 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2040/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Change in financial structures

In reference to the interesting figures given by the Commission for the differing financial structures in the
United States and the euro area for the end of 2001 for bank deposits and other variables on page 28 of
its paper (1) final on the euro area in the world economy, will the Commission please provide comparable
figures for each year back to and including 1998, to provide a comparison with the structures before
monetary union?

Will it also provide comparable figures for each year from 1998 to 2001 for the United Kingdom?

(1) COM(2002) 332.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the honourable Member that a comparable table to the one
presented in the Commission Communication was published in the European Central Bank (ECB) Monthly
Bulletin of January 2000 (Table 2 on p. 39), with data for mid-1999 (see Annex 1 which is sent direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). The entire publication is available from the ECB
web site (1). The ECB table allows a comparison of the financial structure at the beginning of the monetary
union with the end-2001 data in the Commission’s paper.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/129

Data for other years and for the euro area and the United States are available at the sources indicated in
the Table referred to in the question of the Honourable Member (see Annex 2 which is sent direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). For the United Kingdom, data on bank deposits and
loans are published by the Bank of England.

For a closer analysis of the evolution of the euro area financial structure over time, an additional useful
data source are the euro area quarterly financial accounts, regularly published in the statistical section of
the ECB Monthly Bulletin.

(1) http://www.ecb.int/.

(2003/C 92 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2055/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Violation by the Commission of the principle of separation of powers

This Member’s Written Question P-1536/02 (1) was not answered by the Commission, which is why it is
being asked again.

In accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty the Court of Justice is considering Case C-282/00 against the
Portuguese Government, aimed at banning the shipping of sugar from the Autonomous Region of the
Azores to Community territory. The case is being backed by a sugar refinery located on the European
mainland.

Can the Commission confirm that it has initiated parallel infringement proceedings against Portugal on the
same subject pursuant to Article 226 (Case 2002/2012) in support of the claims made by the aforesaid
refinery?

Does the Commission not consider that its parallel proceedings constitute a gross violation of the principle
of separation of powers and are an indication of an unacceptable democratic deficit in Europe?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p.116.

Reply given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question No P-1536/02
concerning Case C-282/00.

As regards the procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty for Member States which have failed to
fulfil an obligation, the Commission confirms that it has sent the Portuguese authorities a letter of formal
notice. Article 226 explicitly authorises the Commission to initiate this procedure if ‘it considers that a
Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty’.

The Member State can defend its position both before the case is brought before the Court (it receives a
letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion which set deadlines by which it must reply and comply
respectively) and once the case is before the Court. As with the procedure for a preliminary ruling, the case
is judged by the Court on the basis of the de jure and de facto circumstances which emerge from the
procedure in which both parties are heard. The Court confirms or excludes wholly or partially, objectively
and independently, the position defended by the Commission.

Where the legal problems arising in the course of
the
Commission can only defend the same approach, unless there are new factors to be taken into account.
There is thus no question of there being any violation of the principle of the separation of powers or any
democratic deficit.

the two procedures are similar in nature,