WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/02 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission. Guaranteeing legal security for farmers in the light of ever-changing agricultural legislation.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, administrative formalities, agricultural policy, aid system, common agricultural policy, simplification of legislation

C 28 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

law would be a long-term project. The Member States
The codification of Community environmental
which have begun to do this have usually set up a specialist committee to draft a codified text; the work
normally takes several years.

Community environmental law has developed in such a way that a simple consolidation of texts would
probably not be enough, as it would be necessary to establish consistency between provisions which can
sometimes be divergent, fill
in any gaps, review the terminology and amend the substance of some
provisions. A private attempt to do this just in the waste sector produced a text of some 120 Articles of
Community law.

Despite all these difficulties, the Commission is willing to examine the Honourable Member’s proposal
more closely and will inform her of its conclusions.

(1) Eur-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/index.html; Celex: http://www.europa.eu.int/celex/htm/celex_fr.htm, provides

additional services and there is a charge for this reason.

(2003/C 28 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1985/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Commission investigation into sugar cartel

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02 (1), by the author of the present question, Commissioner Monti stated
that the Commission had conducted an investigation, finishing in 2001, following which it had concluded
that there is no cartel in the sugar industry in the EU.

Can the Community provide copies of the relevant documents?

(1) Oral reply of 11.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02 by the Honourable Member during question time at Parliament’s
June 2002 part-session, the Commission stated that it had received a complaint at the end of 2000 and
had investigated the matter in the course of 2001.

The complainant claimed to have been the victim of a refusal to supply on the part of sugar producers
from a certain Member State. As such, the allegation did not concern a price agreement and/or market
sharing at European level.

The complainant subsequently withdrew his complaint and, given that the circumstances of the case did
not justify continuing the investigation on an ipso jure basis, the Commission decided to regard the matter
as closed. In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to provide the documents requested by the
Honourable Member.

(2003/C 28 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Guaranteeing legal security for farmers in the light of ever-changing agricultural legislation

EU legislation in the agricultural sector by nature changes all the time. The amendments and adjustments
make the acts more difficult to enforce. Given the continual changes, local authorities do not dare to take

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/169

responsibility for farmers’ aid applications, and the implementation guidelines are confusing. In the end it
is farmers who suffer because of this administrative practice and they are unduly penalised as a result of
the errors that can occur.

The Commission’s administrative simplification proposals do not mention agriculture.

How will the Commission reform agricultural administration and the related decision-making to enable
farmers to enjoy legal security and administrative procedures to be conducted properly in the constantly
changing circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2002)

The Commission is of the view that simple, clear legislation is vital for sound and efficient management of
limited resources, both human and financial, in all policy sectors. The more ambiguous and complex the
rules, the more difficult and costly they are to implement, manage and control in terms of administrative
and human resources, and the more scope will there be for fraud. Simplification is important both to
increase the cost effectiveness of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and to reduce the risk of errors
and fraud.

The Directorate General for Agriculture has made simplification one of its priorities for a number of years,
and work in this area considerably pre-dates the current Commission proposals for administrative
simplification. A service with specific responsibility for simplification was created in 1995, and internal
simplification guidelines have been in place since 1999. Both the Parliament and the Council have
expressed their support for the Commission’s efforts over the last few years to minimise the administrative
burdens imposed by the Common Agricultural Policy on both farmers and national administrations.

In its work to simplify the CAP the Commission has until now chosen to focus on making agricultural
legislation as clear, transparent and easily accessible as possible and on reducing the administrative
workload that the CAP imposes on farmers and on others concerned, as well as on national and
Community authorities, to only what is strictly necessary.

A number of specific initiatives have also been undertaken, notably the Small Farmers’ Scheme, which is
intended to replace annual applications for the different aid schemes with one single aid application valid
for a trial period of
thus reducing the administrative burdens on both farmers and
administrations.

four years,

Simplification is one of the main orientations of the current Mid-Term Review of the CAP (1), in which it is
proposed to simplify the aid regimes, and in which this concept of a single global aid payment is further
developed.

As far as the correct application of aid schemes and the related administrative procedures is concerned,
this falls under the responsibility of Member States;
implementation guidelines issued by national
authorities are the responsibility of those authorities.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.

(2003/C 28 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2013/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Greek Agriculture Ministry funding

The Ministry of Agriculture of the Hellenic Republic has made available to the relevant recipients (town
councils, local authorities and animal welfare organisations) appropriations amounting to EUR 2 350 000.