WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Proposed Swedish ban on cod fishing.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area, fishing regulations, fishing rights

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/229

their results are not published, so that

Is the Commission aware that the 2003 report points out that, while the Commission exercises
2.
checks,
the public is unable to establish any link between
shortcomings in financial management and certain countries or flows of funds, and that the report also
criticises the fact that since 1994 the European Court of Auditors, in its reports on the reliability of
income and expenditure, has made no specific reference by country or fund flow, and hence can make no
positive statements on the accounts of the European Union?

3.
Is there a law in all the Member States comparable to the Dutch law on supervision of European
subsidies, which was adopted following the discovery of errors in the management of the ESF in the period
from 1994 to 1999, and which requires ministers to exercise central oversight over decentralised
spending?

Is oversight at national level limited in practice to the Member States Austria, the United Kingdom

4.
and the Netherlands, and the candidate countries Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Romania?

5. Why are results broken down by fund flow not published, particularly as regards the Structural and
Cohesion Funds and agricultural subsidies?

6. Why are results broken down by Member State, including Member States which themselves practise
no or little oversight, not published?

7. What is the Commission doing, particularly in the light of the report in question, to present these
financial data to the public in a better form, thus reinforcing the possibility of public oversight of
movements of EU funds?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2003/C 161 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Proposed Swedish ban on cod fishing

With respect to the proposal by Sweden to not participate in the cod fishery on several stocks, the
Commission is encouraging Sweden to consider adopting technical measures as an alternative. Both
Reg. 88/98 (1) (technical measures in the Baltic) and Reg. (EC) 850/98 (2) (technical measures in other areas)
include provisions for Member States to take measures going beyond the minimum requirements set out in
these Regulations (Art. 13 of 88/98, Art. 46 of 850/98).

Could the Commission please provide a list of the cases in which Member States have availed themselves
of this possibility? For each instance, could the Commission please specify:

(cid:1) the fishery/fisheries involved, in terms of target species, area and gear type,

(cid:1) when and for how long the measures were enacted,

(cid:1) what measures were adopted by the Member State compared to the CFP requirement,

(cid:1) whether any analysis has been conducted to ascertain if there was any impact from these measures.

C 161 E/230

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

It is interesting to note in this respect that, in the Commission’s proposal for a new technical measures
regulation (3), to replace Reg. (EC) 850/98, there appears to be no article corresponding to Art. 46. Yet in
the explanatory memorandum, it is stated that the Commission has ensured that all relevant provisions of
Reg. (EC) 850/98 have been maintained. Could the Commission please explain why the article has been
dropped?

(1) OJ L 9, 15.1.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1.
(3) COM(2002) 672, 3.12.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2003/C 161 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0933/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2003)

Subject: Mathematical formula

Since 1996 Greece has applied the so-called ‘mathematical formula’ with the Commission’s approval to
select contractors for public works co-funded by the European Union. Can this ‘mathematical formula’
procedure be changed, modified or improved to avoid monopolies being created and to ensure greater
transparency in the award of public works contracts? If so, what could these changes, modifications or
improvements consist of?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0097/03 by
Mr Trakatellis during question time at Parliament’s Mars I 03 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament.