WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/02 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. EC Petition 566/2000.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Norway, administration of the Institutions, agreement (EU), competition law, joint committee (EU), originating product, petition

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/15

the Yorkshire and Humber region to regenerate such
The Commission endorses the initiative of
‘brownfield’ sites like Manningham Mills. While housing projects are not eligible for support, it is clear
that there are other projects coming forward that would be eligible for European funding support.
The Commission is convinced that some of these will be successful and thus enable the building to be used
in a manner that will create employment and wealth in line with the objectives of the programme.

(1) See, among others, the Commission decisions on the cases N 497/2001 ‘Grants for Owner Occupation (Scotland)’,
for Regeneration

N 680/2001 ‘Property Support Scheme (Scotland)’ and N 230/2002 ‘Partnership Support
(England)’.

(2003/C 280 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

The Commission claimed (letter of 19.6.2002) that no effective action could be taken under the EC/
Norway Agreement of 1973. Article 27(2.3) states that the Contracting Parties must provide the Joint
Committee details of any Article 23 breach with all information and a decision made within three months.
Was this done by the EC as a Contracting Party, what was the result, and if it was not done, why was it
not done?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The letter of 19 June 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers sets out the eventual outcomes of
submitting a competition case involving a Norwegian company to the European Economic Community-
Norway Joint Committee under the European Economic Community-Norway Free Trade Agreement of
1973.

However, Article 27 of the said Agreement to which the Honourable Member also refers only provided for
a right for either Contracting Party to refer the matter to the Joint Committee. In the case which is the
subject of EC Petition 566/2000 and of
the question asked by the Honourable Member the facts
established by the Commission did not indicate any violation of Articles 85 and 86 of the then EEC Treaty
and did not call for a reference of the matter under Article 27.

(2003/C 280 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s new accounting officer

The Commission appointed Mr Marc Oostens as its new accounting officer with effect from 1 September
2002.

Can the Commission forward to me a copy of its Decision appointing Mr Oostens?

Can it say from how many candidates Mr Oostens was selected and whether it
Commission officials were given the opportunity of applying for this post?

is true that only

After Mr Oosten’s appointment, when was the interim statement of account drawn up, as required by
Article 18 of the Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
Financial Regulation?

What was the date of the interim statement of account?