WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/02 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission. Infringement proceedings.
Date: 2002-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, France, United Kingdom, application of EU law, beef, enforcement of ruling, judgment of the Court (EU), powers of the institutions (EU), trade restriction

C 280 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

In its attempts to convince a majority of the Convention, is the Commission prepared to emphasise
5.
guarantees of a normal distribution of tasks between Parliament and day-to-day administration and not
variants which sow discord among the probable majority which seeks to defend parliamentary democracy
against an authoritarian administrative form based on opaque private agreements between national
governments?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

In its communication to the European Convention on the institutional architecture of the Union (1), the
Commission stressed its attachment to the ‘Community method’, which is based on a balance between the
institutions in the different phases of the decision-making process, from conception to implementation of
EU policies. It takes the view that the roles and responsibilities of each institution must be clarified without
upsetting the current institutional balance.

On 5 December 2002, when the communication was presented to the European Convention, the President
of the Commission reaffirmed the Commission’s intention to ‘consolidate a Union of peoples and of States
that is the first true supranational democracy’.

from its proposals to the Convention, both in the
The Commission considers that
the
communication referred to above and in the communication it presented at
Convention’s deliberations (2),
in no way intends to increase the level of centralisation and
harmonisation but, rather, that the essential challenge for the Union is to meet the public’s concrete
expectations while respecting the diversity of national, regional and local identities.

the beginning of

is clear

that

it

it

To this end, it will be necessary not only to make a clearer distinction than is currently the case between
legislative and executive functions at Union level (cid:1) and the role of each institution in these functions (cid:1)
but also to involve national parliaments more closely in managing European affairs.

(1) Communication of 4 December 2002, ‘For the European Union: Peace, Freedom, Solidarity’, COM(2002) 728 final.
(2) Communication of 22 May 2002, ‘A project for the European Union’, COM(2002) 247 final.

(2003/C 280 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/02

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Infringement proceedings

On 13 November 2002, the European Commission took the decision to withdraw its application to the
European Court of Justice for the imposition of a daily fine on France for failure to implement the
Judgment of the Court (C-1/00) of 13 December 2001 ordering France to lift the British beef embargo.

In the light of this and other cases, the Commission stated that it will re-examine its approach to the
application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

Does the Commission agree that the present possibilities available to it to pursue compliance with EU
legislation by a Member State are insufficient to have a deterrent effect on Member States, and therefore
need to be reinforced in some way?

Is the Commission intending to bring forward proposals in this respect, bearing in mind the increasing gap
in implementation shown in the recent Internal Market scoreboard report?

Does the Commission agree that lump sum or daily penalty payments (Article 228(2)) can be avoided by
Member States exploiting the legal process, and that this sends the wrong message to Europe’s citizens?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/29

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The fact that the Commission decided to review the conditions for implementing Article 228 of the EC
Treaty in connection with the case referred to by the Honourable Member cannot be regarded as an
admission of inadequate resources but rather a demonstration of the desire to seek the most appropriate
ways under the EC Treaty of ensuring that Court of Justice judgments are implemented.

in connection with the White Paper on Governance as regards better monitoring of

the
Recently,
application of Community law (1), the Commission stressed that it intended to give priority to infringement
proceedings under Article 228. Likewise, in its contribution to the work of the Convention (2), it proposed
reinforcing the machinery at its disposal for performing its general task of ensuring that Union law is
properly implemented.

(1) COM(2002) 725 final.
(2) COM(2002) 728 final.

(2003/C 280 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3860/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Minority Commission decision to draw up a draft treaty

As we are all aware,
takes its decisions
unanimously. This presupposes that the President and individual members do not act on their own
initiative. If, however, they do, any proposal that may be made must be regarded as void.

the Commission is a collegiate body which, outwardly,

Commissioner Vitorino referred to Montesquieu’s principles concerning a three-way division of power,
which is completely incomprehensible since the division of power into separate legislative, executive and
judicial powers does not entitle civil servants to act on their own initiative.

How can a minority of the Commission’s members decide to initiate the drafting of a treaty without the
matter having been put before the Commission as a whole?

(2003/C 280 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Commission funding of production of an unofficial draft treaty

On 4 December 2002 the contribution of three Commissioners to a future draft treaty was published
‘Feasibility Study (cid:1) Contribution to a preliminary draft Constitution of the European
under the title:
Union’. It is clear from the working document that it was drawn up at the request of Commission
President Romano Prodi in agreement with Commissioners Barnier and Vitorino. It is also stated that the
document does not necessarily represent the Commission’s views. Nonetheless, the document is printed on
the Commission’s official headed paper with the Commission logo (cid:1) the EU flag (cid:1) on the front page.

It would therefore be of great interest to the general public to be informed of the following: what did it
cost for Commission President, Romano Prodi, to have a working party set up to draw up an unofficial
draft treaty on his own behalf and on behalf of a couple of other Commissioners, who carried out this
work and where is it entered in the Commission’s accounts?