WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Compensation for fire damage in Pilion in 2000.
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, State aid, agricultural insurance, aid to agriculture, arboriculture, control of State aid, fire, indemnification, olive, operational programme

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/145

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of plans of the government of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to build a new bridge
across the Ziegelgraben and Strelasund (cid:1) to the west of the existing road-rail drawbridge. The new bridge
is designed as a suspension bridge, held by two pylons, designed to allow ships to pass underneath. It is
intended as a toll bridge. The planning and financing of the bridge, which was subject to a public tender
procedure, is the responsibility of the German federal and state authorities, not of the Commission.

Regarding the possible effects of the bridge on bird life in the area as mentioned by the Honourable
Member, the Commission is currently investigating this issue. Based on the available information, the
Commission has taken action to ensure that the Federal Republic of Germany fulfils its obligations under
Article 6 (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1) with regard to the possible effects of the planned bridge. As a result, the German
authorities are conducting an additional assessment of the possible effects of the bridge on the movements
of birds.

The German authorities have not requested support for the project from the Union under the Structural
Funds.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 242 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Compensation for fire damage in Pilion in 2000

(26 February 2003)

In July 2000, the area of Pilion in Greece suffered major damage to olive trees in the areas of Xynovrisi,
Argalasti and Siki situated in the municipality of Argalasti and Afetai, destroying the property and, in
many cases, the sole livelihood of hundreds of inhabitants. Initially, the Greek Government announced
payment of damages in the order of GRD 16 000 per olive tree. Those affected initially received an
advance payment of GRD 5 000 per olive tree and the ministry responsible announced that the remaining
amount would be paid following Commission authorisation.

When was the relevant file submitted to the Commission informing it of the extent of the damage?

Was the Greek Government seeking Commission authorisation to meet the damages from national funds
(in ELGA (cid:1) Farmers Insurance Organisation), or was it seeking Community funding under the CSF
Operational Programme for Agricultural Development?

What stage has now been reached by the proceedings?

If the request by the Greek Government has not yet been approved by the Commission, to what can this
delay be attributed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The scheme for compensating Greek farmers who suffered losses caused by the fires in 2000 was notified
to the Commission by letter of 7 December 2000, received on 11 December.

C 242 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Greek draft interministerial decision constituting the legal basis for the compensation scheme provides
for a budget of GRD 25 billion (EUR 73 367 572), to be financed as follows:

(cid:1) GRD 17 billion (EUR 49 889 949)

the Ministry of
Agriculture (SAE 082/3); on the basis of the Commission’s conclusions when examining other
compensation cases, this appears to be eligible for part-financing,

from the public investment programme of

(cid:1) GRD 8 billion (EUR 23 477 623) from the ordinary budget of the Ministry of Agriculture,

in other

words State aid.

The Commission must therefore decide whether two sources of financing can be used, i.e. it must consider
this case in the light of two sets of rules.

The Greek authorities were recently asked to provide additional information. The Commission is awaiting
their reply before drawing up a draft decision.

There are several reasons for the time taken to examine the compensation scheme:

(cid:1) Under Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1), when the Commission examines State aid,
it has two months from the day following the receipt of a complete notification to reach a decision.

(cid:1) When the Greek authorities notified the compensation scheme, they announced their intention of not
waiting for the Commission’s approval before making advance payments. These advance payments
began without the Commission’s agreement, and became illegal aid under the above-mentioned
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. Article 13(2) of the Regulation provides that in cases of possible
unlawful aid the time-limit mentioned above does not apply. As pointed out above, the Commission
must in any case await the reply of the Greek authorities before drafting a proposal for a decision.

they must present an amended version of

(cid:1) If the Greek authorities are intending to finance the compensation scheme for farmers from part-
‘Rural development’
financed funds,
operational programme for 2000-2006 drawn up under the Community Support Framework for
Greece, re-drawing the profiles of the financial tables of the programme to take account of the funds
transferred between priorities. The profiles should be redrawn not only as a function of the use of the
part-financed funds under the scheme we are concerned with here, but also to take account of all
transfers of funds in the framework of other compensation schemes set up by the Greek authorities.
The Commission has not so far received an amended version of the programme, or the new profiles
for the financial tables. Until these documents are available, the Commission cannot take any decision
concerning the use of the part-financed funds under the compensation scheme.

their national

(1) OJ L 93, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(2003/C 242 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/03

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Community Initiative Programmes

In view of the low take-up of various Community Initiative Programmes by the United Kingdom, could the
Commission please supply details, broken down by region, of submissions made by the UK on the Leader+
and Urban II programmes (by value).

Would the Commission also comment on what steps it intends to take in respect of the Government’s
submitted forecasts for spending under these programmes whose outturn is over 25 % different to the
forecasts and what sum of money, actually committed for UK projects, will be subjected to such action?