WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The priorities for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, economic consequence, employment policy, fishery management, fishing regulations, proposal (EU)

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/197

My question relates specifically to the situation in Belgium.

(cid:1) Does Belgium transpose European directives by the stipulated deadlines?

(cid:1) If not, how often (percentage) does Belgium fail to meet the deadline?

(cid:1) What are the directives concerned?

(cid:1) How does Belgium score compared with other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

The 19th report on monitoring the application of Community law (2001) (1), which was adopted on
28 June 2002 and a provisional version of which has been sent to Parliament, answers the questions raised
by the Honourable Member on compliance by Belgium with deadlines for transposing directives.

It has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) COM(2002) 324, 28 June 2002.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions.

(2003/C 28 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: The priorities for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

(18 July 2002)

The conclusions of the Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (1),
after mentioning the regulations and action plans covered by the first package of reform proposals, specify,
inter alia, legislative proposals and measures to counter the social, economic and regional consequences of
the restructuring of the fishing industry; management of fisheries; improvement of scientific advice for
fisheries management; discards; stock evaluation in non-Community waters and the Joint Inspection
Structure.

these proposals are supposed to be given priority, which means

All
their adoption and
implementation should precede the regulations and plans in the first package, which are intended to
regulate decisive aspects such as conservation of fishery resources, the scrapping of fishing vessels or the
use of
the
information and instruments in the second package. What are the reasons for this strange and irrational
order of priority?

funding now allocated to modernising the fleets, without

the benefit of

the structural

that

(1) COM(2002) 181 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as outlined in its
The Commission’s proposals for reform of
Communication (cid:1) Roadmap (1) are not only numerous but also technically complex. Therefore, it would
be practically impossible to present simultaneously three regulations and 13 Communications/Actions
Plans.

The Commission has therefore decided to present a number of proposals during the first semester of 2002
and the rest during the second semester of 2002.

In the so-called ‘first package of proposals’ the Commission has included all the legally binding proposals
(draft regulations) whose adoption is a pre-requisite for the entry in force of the new CFP from 1 January
2003.

C 28 E/198

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The other proposals foreseen for the second semester 2002, in non-legally binding form, are not less
important but require further technical analysis and preparatory work, including, for example, discussion
with each Member State on the possible economic and social impact of the proposed measures.

The Commission will endeavour to ensure that
Parliament as soon as possible and in any case before the end of 2002.

these proposals are presented to the Council and

(1) COM(2002) 181 final.

(2003/C 28 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2182/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Persistent conflict of interests in the DG for Transport

(12 July 2002)

The Commission’s answer dated 25 June 2002 to my Written Question P-1566/02 (1) is not satisfactory.

My written question concerned a Greek motorway, the Via Egnatia, which has been given priority under
the TEN Programme. One of the main beneficiaries of this project is Egnatia SA. The managing director of
this entity is the husband of the Head of Unit who drew up the draft decision relating to financial
assistance. This constitutes a serious conflict of interest.

Will the Commission confirm that the Head of Unit in question drew up the draft decision on this project
for approval by the Financial Committee (the Committee established under Regulation (EC) No 2236/
95 (2))?

Will the Commission confirm that the Head of Unit in question is responsible for the general management
of the TEN project which includes the general guidelines for the Via Egnatia?

the Commission confirm that

Will
the spokesman for Commissioner Loyola de Palacio (quoted in
‘European Voice’) was mistaken when he claimed that the Head of Unit in question had been moved to
another post?

Will the Commission confirm that Egnatia SA is the final beneficiary of the financial assistance, and will it
please inform Parliament as to how much money has been given to Egnatia SA to date?

Apparently, 160 small contracts have been signed with regard to studies for the Via Egnatia. Will the
Commission please explain what these studies cover and how they comply with the objectives of the
programme? Will it also indicate whether it has carried out any on-the-spot checks and, if so, what the
outcome was?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 181.
(2) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The Commission has already answered some of the Honourable Member’s questions in its reply to written
question P-1566/02, concerning, inter alia, the responsibilities of the Head of Unit in charge of trans-
European network project management (TEN-T). In its previous reply, the Commission clearly indicated
that, to avoid any possible conflict of interest, since January 2001 the Head of Unit in question was not
dealing with matters relating to the Egnatia project which is part of the PATHE-Egnatia Essen priority
project, and that any questions on the project would be dealt with by the official in charge of TEN-T
projects for Greece, who would report directly to the competent Director. The Director is also in charge of
the general management of TEN-T projects, including the general guidelines for these projects.