WRITTEN QUESTION P-2054/02 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mid-term review.
Date: 2002-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid to agriculture, animal production, beef, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, regulation of agricultural production

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/195

Should there be a reoccurrence of the circumstances condemned by the Court of Justice in Case C-265/95,
the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that that judgment is complied with.

(1)

In its judgment of 9 December 1997 in Case C-265/95 (Commission v France [1997], ECR I-6959), the Court of
Justice ruled that ‘by failing to take all necessary and proportionate measures to prevent actions of individuals from
hindering the free movement of fruit and vegetables, the French Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations arising
from the common organisations of the markets in agricultural products and from Article 30 (now Article 28) in
conjunction with Article 5 (now Article 10) of the Treaty.’.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to

the free movement of goods among the Member States (OJ L 337, 12.12.1998).

(2002/C 309 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Regional policy

In connection with the acquisition of railway equipment by the Greek public body Attiko Metro A.E.,
financed with ERDF and EIB funding (50 % and 40 % respectively), there are serious doubts about the
procedure for awarding the contract to the Korean firm Koros, which may seriously affect the EU’s
financial interests.

The award was called into question by two rulings by the Greek Court of Auditors. Indeed it does not
seem sensible to award the contract for the basic option only,
i.e. without air conditioning or the
equipment for ATO systems. It is even more difficult to understand why, in addition to the basic option,
the seven dual-voltage trains for the new underground link to the airport are not being included. The link
is justified in particular as infrastructure for the 2004 Olympic Games, which is why it is receiving
European funding to cofinance the operation. Surprisingly, there are reports that work on this contract has
already begun.

What steps will the European Commission take to ensure proper use of its resources, in view of this
situation?

What measures will be adopted to ensure that Attiko Metro A.E. complies with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

In response to a complaint received, the Commission has questioned the Greek authorities on several
issues regarding the public supply contract mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission is
unable, at this stage, to prejudge the final answer given by the Greek authorities, but if it were to discover
an infringement of Community law on public procurement, it would, on the basis of Article 226 of the EC
Treaty, take whatever measures were required to ensure compliance with Community legislation.

(2002/C 309 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2054/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Mid-term review

Further to the reply to my oral question H-0410/02 June 2002 (1), could the Commission explain the basis
of its expectation of continuing high prices for sheep meat in the medium term, in view of the fact that
the higher prices since 2000 directly resulted from scarcity of supply because of the BSE and foot-and-
mouth disease impact on the market, and in view of the fact that for the seven years previously, income
returns for sheep producers had been disastrous.

C 309 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Given the special report of the Court of Auditors, does the Commission now intend to include all sheep in
future calculations of extensification payments?

Would it agree that this would result in a mass exodus from sheep production (cid:1) in deficit within the EU (cid:1)
and an increase in beef production (cid:1) already in surplus within the EU, as producers receive no
extensification payments for sheep and this could reduce payments on bovines?

(1) Written answer, 11.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

In the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s oral question H-0410/02 during question time at
Parliament’s June 2002 session, it was stated that the Commission expected a solution to be found to the
problem of the lower profitability of sheep, compared to beef production in Ireland, within the context of
the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy.

At that time, the Commission had not yet adopted its Communication to the Council and the Parliament
on the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (1), which was done on 10 July 2002.

A key element of the Mid-Term Review is the decoupling of headage payments for beef and sheep, and
their replacement with a single income payment per farm based on historical entitlements.

is the view of

It
this
decoupling of aids should reduce pressure towards intensive production and help achieve a more balanced
market situation.

together with reinforced cross-compliance conditions,

the Commission that,

In terms of the relative profitability of beef and sheep production in Ireland, under this proposal, all
farmers would have the flexibility to adjust their stock numbers to what was economically best for their
situation, without the relative level of the headage payments affecting their judgement.

It is thus in this context that the Commission would expect the problem of the distorting effects of the
current headage payment system to be discussed and solved.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.

(2002/C 309 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2073/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Obligatory number plates for bicycles throughout the EU

Many Austrian towns are faced with the problem of the unauthorised use of public facilities and areas by
cyclists.

It is not unusual for cyclists to use paths or areas where cycling is forbidden. This breaking of the law
means that other road-users, passers-by and residents suffer, and accidents occur quite frequently.

It is, in general, difficult to call cyclists to account in such situations. Unless the cyclists stop, the absence
of number plates on bicycles makes it almost impossible for their identity to be established.