WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/02 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Irregular acceptance by the Commission of upwards vision of processed tomato quantity data.
Date: 2002-10-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Italy, aid system, application of EU law, fruit vegetable, production aid, production quota, vegetable product

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/109

(2003/C 110 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/02

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Irregular acceptance by the Commission of upwards vision of processed tomato quantity data

In its draft measures for the meeting of the Processed Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee of
28 January 2002, the Commission admitted certain requests for aid from Italy.

Does the Commission believe that these requests should have been subject to the controls laid down in
Regulations (EC) No 2201/96 (1) and (EC) 449/2001 (2)?

Does the Commission believe that there has not been a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 449/2001 (which lays down 10 December as the deadline by which Member States have to submit to
the Commission the total quantities for which aid has been requested)?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 16.

(2003/C 110 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/02

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Irregular acceptance by the Commission of upwards vision of processed tomato quantity data

On what date was notice given of the holding of the 28 January 2002 Processed Fruit and Vegetable
Management Committee meeting? What was the reason for holding the meeting?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2811/02, E-2812/02 and E-2813/02
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

At the meeting of the Management Committee for products processed from fruit and vegetables on
15 January 2002 it was noted, on the basis of information provided by the Member States, that the
Community threshold for processing tomatoes had not been exceeded for the 2001/2002 marketing year.
Consequently, no reduction in aid was applicable in respect of the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 marketing
years. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1), the Management Committee had been consulted
regarding a proposal for a Regulation fixing, for all Member States, the additional amount at a maximum
level for the 2001/02 marketing year and aid for the 2002/03 marketing year at the level fixed by the
Council. The Committee was unanimously in favour.

On 24 January 2002, outside the time limits stipulated by Regulation 449/2001 (2), Italy sent a correction
of the data previously provided, with the result that the Community threshold was exceeded.

The Commission therefore had two options:

(cid:1) to reject on formal grounds the new data sent by the Italian authorities and complete the procedure
for publishing the version of the Regulation approved at the meeting of the Management Committee
on 15 January 2002, which would have entailed a certain loss for the Community budget;

(cid:1) to take the new data provided by Italy into account in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the
Council Regulation, which requires aid to be paid while estimating any amount in excess of the
threshold based on the quantity actually delivered for processing with aid.

C 110 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

The second option was chosen. Consequently, a meeting of the Management Committee was convened on
25 January and held on 28 January 2002. The only agenda item was a new draft Commission Regulation
correcting the proposal presented to the Committee on 15 January. The Committee was unanimously in
favour of the draft, which reduces additional aid and the basic aid for the 2002/2003 marketing year in
Italy and Spain (cid:1) the Member States whose threshold was exceeded.

The Commission is sure that the Honourable Member shares the concern to defend the Community
financial interests which underlies the decisions taken and will therefore agree that it acted properly.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed

fruit and vegetable products, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 449/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council
Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables, OJ L 64,
6.3.2001.

(2003/C 110 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Lemon curd and mincemeat

A British newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, which is notorious for its habit of inaccurate and ill-
researched anti-EU propaganda, alleged on 21 September 2002 that, in a proposed ‘revised version of the
EU Directive on fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut puree’, it will in future be illegal
in the United Kingdom ‘to put “lemon curd” or “mincemeat” on a label’.

What is the truth?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Lemon curd is a product made, mainly, from an emulsion of edible fats or other oils (or both), sugar,
whole egg or egg yolk (or both), and any combination of lemon puree, lemon pulp or lemon.

Mincemeat is a product made mainly from a sweetening agent, vine fruits, citrus peel, sugar or any other
carbohydrate, suet or equivalent fat and vinegar or acetic acid with or without other ingredients.

Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001, relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and
sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption (1), defines the names jam, extra jam, jelly,
extra jelly, marmalade, jelly marmalade and sweetened chestnut puree. Products bearing these names must
have a composition that corresponds to the definitions in the Annex (I) of the Council Directive 2001/
113/EC.

The said Directive does not provide for a prohibition to use the names ‘mincemeat’ or ‘lemon curd’ for the
products described at the beginning of this reply.

(1) OJ L 10, 12.1.2002.