WRITTEN QUESTION E-2048/02 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Internal market.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Spain, agricultural trade, indemnification, intra-EU trade, liability of the State, restriction on competition, stone fruit

C 309 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The Council Resolution 292/02 on eInclusion calls on the Member States to remove barriers in the
information society by tackling technical barriers for people with different disabilities in terms of ICT
equipment and by promoting the development of specific software adapted to the particular needs of
disadvantaged groups.

(1) COM(2001) 529 final.
(2) Council Resolution 7087/02 of 20th March 2002 on: the eEurope Action Plan 2002: Accessibility of public web

sites and their content; OJ C 86, 10.4.2002.

(2002/C 309 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2048/02

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

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Internal market

The main French farming organisations, the FNSEA and ‘Young Farmers’ have threatened wholesale
distribution in that country, demanding that French fruit be sold and no Spanish products be purchased.
Inter alia, they are monitoring sales outlets in France to ascertain that their demands are being met.

As a consequence of these measures, wholesale prices, especially for peaches and nectarines, have fallen
30 % compared with last year, causing the sector enormous losses.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What steps will be taken to put an end to this problem? Within what timescale?

How will Spanish producers be compensated, in view of the fact that French farmers take some action of
this kind nearly every year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the recent difficulties affecting the marketing of Spanish fruit and vegetables
in France as a result of intimidation and violence by French farming organisations.

As soon as the Commission became aware of this, it approached the French authorities to remind them of
their obligations in this respect under Articles 10 and 28 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of
Justice in its judgment of 9 December 1997 in Case C-265/95 (1) and under Article 4 of Regulation (EC)
No 2679/98 (2) which provides that when an obstacle occurs, and subject to Article 2, the Member State
concerned is to take all necessary and proportionate measures so that the free movement of goods is
assured in its territory in accordance with the Treaty, and inform the Commission of the actions which its
authorities have taken or intend to take.

The French authorities have indicated that the destruction of Spanish fruit and vegetables on display in two
supermarkets was the result of riotous behaviour by demonstrators not following their unions’ instructions.
In addition to action to be taken by the police, the French authorities point out that the injured parties will
be able to claim damages under French law and that the demonstrations were not specifically targeted at
Spanish produce but more at malpractices by some supermarkets against the background of a slump in
sales of regional products.

The Commission will continue to closely follow developments in the fruit and vegetable marketing year in
France and has again contacted the French authorities to obtain more detailed information on what
measures have been taken against organised intimidation to give French products the advantage in
supermarket distribution.

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.