WRITTEN QUESTION P-2055/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Violation by the Commission of the principle of separation of powers.
Date: 2002-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, legal action, separation of powers, sugar refining

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,