WRITTEN QUESTION P-3756/02 by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission. Separation of the TACs for sole and plaice from the cod problem, dealing with the cod crisis and the TACS for sole and plaice.
Date: 2002-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, authorised catch, by-catch, catch quota, competence of the Member States, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing regulations, quantity of fish landed, sea fish

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/183

Although Treaty Article 152 defines in paragraphs 1 to 4 the legal competence of the Community in the
area of health,
the Member States for the
organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, which leaves the provision of HPV-testing for
their citizens to their sole discretion. The draft proposal of a Council Recommendation on cancer
screening will fully respect Article 152 (5).

it also enshrines in paragraph 5 the responsibilities of

The drafting has taken somewhat more time than expected. This is due to the need to carefully evaluate
the scientific evidence that has been accumulated in this area. The proposal for a Council Recommendation
will in particular focus on the principles and standards which should be applied when providing cancer
screening tests for European citizens.

The clinical value of organised screening for the early detection of cervical cancer by testing for certain
genotypes of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which are associated with a high risk to develop a
malignancy, is presently under study. Besides the organised clinical studies the test is commercially offered
and prescribed for individual screening on demand, usually in addition to the well established pap test.

(2003/C 155 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3756/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Separation of the TACs for sole and plaice from the cod problem, dealing with the cod crisis and

the TACS for sole and plaice

How will the Commission tackle illegal landing of cod, which is far more damaging to cod stocks than the
by-catches which occur in fishing for flatfish, and what quantitative targets has the Commission set itself
for reducing illegal landing of cod?

As an alternative to its proposals regarding cod stocks and the simultaneous reduction of TACs (Total
Allowable Catches) for sole and plaice, will the Commission allow flatfish fishermen to adopt more
stringent technical measures to prevent by-catches of cod while in addition reducing the fishing effort
during the spawning season and adopting measures for specific areas?

How will the Commission compensate the fishermen who suffer from the proposed measures, bearing in
mind that not every Member State can make budget funds available for this?

In view of the seriousness of the situation and the Council’s timetable of meetings, I would request an
answer to my question as soon as possible.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Given the difficulty of ensuring accurate catch reporting in relation to fish quota management, the
Commission considers that the management of fishing effort is an essential instrument to control the
fishing mortality rate experienced by the cod stocks that are under threat. Management of effort is needed
for all fisheries that catch cod, though the extent to which effort should be reduced needs to be in
proportion to the amount of cod caught in each fishery.

The Commission has not specified any permissible level of illegal cod landings nor does it intend to so.
The Commission encourages all Member States that participate in fisheries to put in place effective and
appropriate control, inspection and sanction régimes to reduce illegal landings to the lowest possible value.

C 155 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

The Commission will assist this process according to its responsibilities. Where evidence of unreported cod
landings comes to the Commission’s attention,
it will review all available information and may issue
requests for administrative enquiries to investigate the extent and importance of such problems in specific
cases. If the evidence so justifies, the Commission will initiate legal procedures against Member States
(possibly resulting in a procedure before the European Court of Justice). Furthermore, the Commission
intends to elaborate specific monitoring programmes to monitor closely certain sensitive fisheries and to
establish benchmarks for inspection procedures.

Experience with seasonal protected areas or closed areas for cod conservation has shown very limited
benefit because as soon as a seasonal area is re-opened, intense fishing activity can restart and many of the
fish from within the area can be caught. The important measure that needs to be introduced is, therefore, a
limitation on effective fishing effort. The Commission does not support seasonal closed areas as an
alternative to reduced fishing effort.

The co-financed measures of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) are intended to assist
in achieving a better balance between the fishing effort employed and the resources available. This should
happen by a permanent reduction in surplus fishing capacity within national programmes. Such measures
could be combined with social and economic measures such as early retirement schemes and individual
compensatory payments for fishermen. Member States that do not dispose of adequate financial flexibility
because they had not earmarked sufficient financial resources for social and economic measures have the
possibility to reprogramme their expenditures in order to do this if they so decide.

(2003/C 155 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/02

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: States party to international conventions which protect only their own nationals and not all

Community citizens

In its judgment on the Gottardo v INPS case, the Court of Justice laid down clear principles on bilateral
conventions (virtually all bilateral conventions currently only protect citizens of the contracting states).
Other Community citizens resident in Italy who work in Monaco or San Maríno by virtue of their
citizenship are denied entitlement to social security benefits. Moreover, in implementing the commitments
entered into under international conventions, Member States must abide by their obligations under
Community law.

What action does the Commission intend to take in the light of the above judgment vis-à-vis those states
party to international conventions which protect only their own nationals and not all Community citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

In its judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00 Gottardo, the Court of Justice ruled:

The competent social security authorities of one Member State are required, pursuant
to their
Community obligations under Article 39 EC, to take account, for purposes of acquiring the right to
old-age benefits, of periods of insurance completed in a non-member country by a national of a
second Member State in circumstances where, under identical conditions of contribution, those
competent authorities will take into account such periods where they have been completed by
nationals of the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between
that Member State and the non-member country.