WRITTEN QUESTION P-2184/02 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Modification of the cohesion policy agreed on in Berlin in the context of Agenda 2000.
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing arrangements, FIFG, Structural Funds, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, economic planning, fishing fleet, fishing industry, legal basis, redevelopment aid, sectoral aid

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/133

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Marketing standards for several fruit and vegetables, including bananas, are laid down in Commission
regulations. They are based on international agreements discussed in forums such as the Economic
Commission for Europe in the United Nations context (CEE/ONU). The Commission has repeatedly made
this situation clear, including in the explanations of ‘Euromyths’ given by the Commission Representation
in the United Kingdom.

the Commission would like to point out

As regards the High Court judgment of 24 June 2002, to which the Honourable Member refers in his
question,
into question the
applicability of the said Community marketing standards in the United Kingdom. Rather, its judgment is
concerned with the interpretation of a national provision which makes the violation of those standards an
offence. The Court concluded that that national provision does not apply in respect of such standards that
were made after the provision came into force.

the Court did not call

that

The Commission is following closely how the British authorities will react to the High Court’s judgment.

(2003/C 52 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2184/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Modification of the cohesion policy agreed on in Berlin in the context of Agenda 2000

Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds
stipulates ‘each plan, Community support framework, operational programme and single programming
document shall cover a period of seven years’. Four exceptions to this timescale are envisaged, the first two
in paragraph 1 itself and the others in paragraph 2.

The recent Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EC) 2792/1999 (2) aims to abolish certain forms of
aid envisaged under the FIFG in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
1263/1999 (3), which constitutes a unilateral modification of the Community Support Framework (CSF)
adopted by the Commission, once the plan submitted by the Member State concerned has been analysed.
The plan should describe, inter alia, the ‘specific objectives’ (Article 9(d)) of Regulation 1260/99.

Can the Commission say whether it considers this unilateral modification of what was already agreed
under the said CSF as a result of the legislation deriving from Agenda 2000 to be lawful?

If it does, on the basis of what tangible legal basis and what arguments can the Commission justify this
unilateral modification of the rules agreed for a period of seven years, which seriously affects the
programming and interests of economic operators in the Member States and the economic and social
cohesion of the regions where they are established, mainly Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 54.

(2003/C 52 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: FIFG reprogramming

In its proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) approved by the College of
the Commission proposes abolishing aid for fleet renewal and
Commissioners on 28 May 2002,