WRITTEN QUESTION P-0601/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. COM for the dairy sector and the additional levy for Portugal.
Date: 2003-02-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, agricultural situation, common agricultural policy, dairy production, derogation from EU law, regulation of agricultural production

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/219

The traffic situation in Norrland differs from that in Central Europe. Timber hauliers can drive for an hour
and a half without meeting any oncoming traffic. Driving on bad roads in the dark with a high risk of
encountering elk means that several extra lights are needed in the north of Sweden compared with more
densely populated areas in the EU. Powerful lights are a safety factor. Crashing into wild animals costs
money and causes problems. It is not a problem for HGV drivers to dip their lights for oncoming traffic.

Is there a possibility of regional exemptions from the directive as regards lights on HGV?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

To comply with Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and
their trailers (1), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/28/EC of 11 June 1997 (2), motor vehicles
must be fitted with either two or four main-beam headlamps, the aggregate intensity of which shall not
exceed 225,000 cd. These provisions have remained unchanged since the 1976 and are aligned with
Regulation 48 of the United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). Proposals are currently
under consideration within the UN/ECE, though, to permit an additional two main-beam headlamps to be
fitted to heavy goods vehicles greater than 12 tonnes in mass, provided that only four can be illuminated
at any one time.

Heavy goods vehicles are type-approved on the basis of national legislation and do not yet fall under the
Community Whole Vehicle Type-Approval system, although it is anticipated that proposals to include
them in this system on a mandatory basis as from 2008 will be brought forward to the European
Parliament and Council soon.

For the purposes of granting national type approvals, the Swedish authorities must accept vehicles that
conform to Council Directive 76/756/EEC. However, compliance with the Directive is not mandatory, and
the authorities may therefore also accept vehicles that comply with alternative provisions. Where
alternative provisions are available it is up to the manufacturer to choose whether he would prefer to have
the type-approval of his vehicle based upon the alternative provisions or the Directive. As far as
practicable, the Commission would encourage all Member States to align their national provisions with the
relevant EC Directives at the earliest possible date prior to the Community Whole Vehicle Type-Approval
system becoming mandatory for heavy good vehicles.

In addition, once any vehicle is registered, it is subject to the national provisions concerning the use of
vehicles, and it is a matter for the Swedish authorities to determine whether or not they wish to permit the
subsequent installation of additional main-beam headlamps.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(2) OJ L 171, 30.6.1997.

(2003/C 222 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0601/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: COM for the dairy sector and the additional levy for Portugal

The current marketing year for milk ends in March. As things stand, almost 20 000 Portuguese producers
may have to pay fines for exceeding their individual quotas. It appears that the Portuguese milk quota may
be exceeded by between 40 000 and 50 000 tonnes, implying a fine of 37 cents per litre, which gives a
total of EUR 15 million. Estimates from the Portuguese sector indicate that, if this fine were to be applied
and bearing in mind the large debts incurred by many producers, it could lead to the disappearance of
30 % of producers in the Douro-Minho region alone. It should be pointed out in this connection that 78 %
of producers have ceased production over the past decade between the 1991/92 and 2001/02 marketing

C 222 E/220

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

years, i.e. 75 000 producers have left the industry, 20 000 of them between 1999 and 2002, most of them
being small and medium-sized producers in inland regions or regions facing particular difficulties such as
mountain regions. This development is chiefly due to the increase in intensification, concentration and
verticalisation of milk production in Portugal. Price policy, the buying-up of quotas from small producers,
transfers of quotas ‘without land’, and the scrapping of shared milking parlours, collection points and
stock-management bodies have also caused serious difficulties across much of the EU. Moreover, the
reform of the COM as part of Agenda 2000 failed to take account of this situation and maintained an
unfair quota for Portugal, which was based on historical production and productivity levels without
considering factors such as the number of farms, self-supply and the sector’s importance in the least-
favoured regions. This was a reform aimed at cutting farm prices with partial compensation in the form of
direct aid (around 80 %), mainly based on national aid to be allocated with reference only to the scale of
production in each country, without taking account of other factors linked to economic and social
cohesion. Furthermore, the calculation method used, the famous ‘virtual cow’, penalised farmers and
countries with a lower level of productivity.

The Commission:

the enormous

(cid:1) what measures will it adopt to take account of the specific characteristics of Portuguese farming and
prevent
levy would have,
particularly for less-favoured regions? Does it not consider that the Portuguese quota should be
increased so as to reflect current productivity levels, as well as the degree of self-supply and economic
and social cohesion;

socio-economic consequences which the additional

(cid:1) does it not consider that the proposed mid-term review will merely help to accentuate current trends
in the sector? What steps will it take to guarantee balanced milk production throughout EU territory,
including inland and mountain regions, with the goal of maintaining a dense network of small and
medium-sized farms?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s opinion on milk production in Portugal for the
following reasons:

(cid:1) From the outset, quotas were set with reference to production and not to consumption. In 1986
Portugal was permitted not
they were set at
approximately 160 % of production at the time of accession. Continuously increasing from 1986
onwards, Portuguese milk production has reached and exceeded the quota since 1999/2000.

to start applying quotas until 1992. Moreover,

(cid:1) Even if the consumption criterion had to be taken into account when setting the quota, this argument
is not relevant to Portugal: the fact that intervention for butter is now permanent in Portugal and
exceeds 5 % of production shows that there are already structural surpluses in the dairy sector.

(cid:1) The disappearance of many very small milk producers in Portugal

it has been
encouraged and financed by Community and national programmes and funds in order to enable
restructuring of the sector. Moreover, in all Member States the number of milk producers has fallen
while productivity has risen.

is not accidental:

(cid:1) Milk quotas were introduced primarily in order to limit supply and to guarantee adequate production
prices. They have proved highly effective in this respect wherever they have been applied correctly.

(cid:1) When Agenda 2000 was adopted, Portugal had not yet reached its quota once; hence there was no
reason to consider exemptions from the general rule. Moreover, there is no longer a ‘virtual cow’ in
the final text. In the draft reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) currently under discussion,
Portugal receives the same cautious quota increases as the other Member States (cid:1) many of which
would have grounds for wishing to produce more milk.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/221

The answer to the questions put is therefore:

(cid:1) The Commission cannot propose an exemption from payment of the levy, either for Portugal or for
any other Member State. To do so would open the way to a price collapse and distort competition
with producers who have complied with their quota.

(cid:1) The reform currently under discussion does not in principle change the conditions in this respect:
quotas will still not be able to circulate from one Member State to another, and their allocation among
regions and producers will remain a national responsibility based on general criteria established in the
Community rules.

(2003/C 222 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on

vehicles in Germany

Restrictions on the freedom of nationals from one Member State to establish themselves within the
territory of another Member State are prohibited under Article 43 of the EC Treaty, save where they are
justified in the public interest. Those restrictions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice as including
rules or provisions which apply both to nationals and to non-nationals alike but which in practice make it
problematic or less advantageous for nationals from one Member State to establish themselves in another.

Annex VIIIb of the 28 September 1988 Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO)
lays down the
requirements which bodies wishing to carry out roadworthiness tests in Germany must fulfil in order to
secure the necessary authorisation from each federal state. One such requirement is that of submitting a
series of documents and demonstrating that certain conditions of a practical nature have been met,
including one to the effect
the body seeking authorisation must comprise a minimum of 60
independent experts and that a minimum number of those experts must be based within the country in
which recognition is being sought.

that

Does the Commission not think that insisting that those requirements be met before authorisation can be
granted restricts freedom of establishment, since it calls for business investment
to be made and
entrepreneurial risks to be taken in advance? In practice, this makes it less attractive for a national from
some other Member State to set up a vehicle roadworthiness testing business in Germany.

the Commission not consider

Does
laid down under German law place
disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of establishment, even if such restrictions may be justified in
the public interest?

the requirements

that

Does the Commission not consider the German law in question to be incompatible with the general
principles underlying Council Directive 96/96/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers?

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the circumstances described by the Honourable Member.

It does not have detailed knowledge of the legislation in question and will lose no time in investigating the
matter.

The Commission will naturally inform the Honourable Member of the results of its enquiries.