WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Comitology.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, comitology, committee (EU), delegation of power, representative of local or regional authority

C 11 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Given that these measures are taken under national responsibility, the Commission was not obliged to
ascertain if there was any impact from these measures and has not carried out an assessment in this
respect. It has become clear over the last years that the Community interest in the type of measures which
exclusively apply to fishermen from the Member State taking the measure does not justify a systematic
prior scrutiny by the Commission.

The possibility for Member States to introduce national measures, as foreseen in Article 46 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical
measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, is now in part covered by the provisions of
Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1). Article 10 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 no longer provides for prior scrutiny of measures by the Commission
before implementation. It, however, limits the possibility for Member States to take national measures to
rules applying to their nationals when they fish in waters inside their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Commission has sympathy for maintaining the possibility for Member States to adopt technical
measures in relation to their own fishermen under a provision similar to Article 46 Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 850/98, where these measures would also apply outside the waters under the
sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member State concerned.

However, the heavy procedures foreseen in paragraphs (2)-(5) of Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98
for the prior scrutiny of measures by the Commission cannot be justified anymore, as the experience over
the last years has demonstrated that this procedure is not necessary for the good functioning of the CFP.
The Commission welcomes therefore that Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 no longer
foresees such a procedure.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Comitology

The committees established pursuant to Decision 1999/468/EC (1), laying down the procedures for the
exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, comprise one representative per Member
State, plus a Commission representative who acts as chairman.

Can the Commission tell me whether there is any problem in Member States’ sending representatives of
regional governments as members of these committees? How many regional representatives, if any, are
currently members of these committees?

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1)

The Commission would point out that the Member States are legally the ‘members’ of the committees set
up pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the
the
exercise of
Decision and Article 6(1) of the standard internal rules of procedure of these committees). Consequently, it
is for the Member States alone to decide on the composition of the delegations sent to represent them on
these committees. There is nothing to prevent a Member State from designating representatives of a
regional government as its representatives on a committee, provided that it is understood that these
persons represent the Member State as a whole, not the regional government.

(see Articles 3, 4 and 5 of

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/117

The Commission has no statistical data on the number of representatives of regional governments
currently representing their Member State on the committees in question.
It notes that regional
representatives do not necessarily represent their Member State on a permanent basis; they may vary
from meeting to meeting. This is true of the Socrates Committee and its subcommittees, on which
Germany is represented by a representative of the Federal Republic and a representative of the Länder,
internal responsibilities being divided between the two entities.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0787/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Second Commission report on the outermost regions

(14 March 2003)

In June 2002 in Seville, the European Council called on the Commission and Council to ‘press ahead with
the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, which recognises the specific nature of the outermost
regions, and to submit suitable proposals for their special needs to be taken into account’. It also noted the
Commission’s intention to ‘submit a new report on those regions, built on a global, coherent approach to
the special characteristics of their situation and to ways of addressing them’.

The need for fuller implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, making use of its potential in view of
the real and urgent needs of the outermost regions, has been brought to the Commission’s attention from
various quarters (cid:1) the regions themselves, the Member States concerned, the European Parliament, the
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. The European Convention is now also
an arena for the moves to consolidate Article 299(2).

This is also the moment for rethinking how the EU can best meet the real and pressing needs of the
outermost regions. This should involve, for example: updating the existing priorities, notably those defined
under the POSEI programmes and in the Commission’s first report of 2000; adding new priorities, e.g.
investment in human capital and access for those regions’ citizens to the knowledge and information
society; and finding suitable means of financing measures which the outermost regions clearly need but
which are not being dealt with by or are not eligible under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or
other existing instruments.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Given that Article 299 of the Treaty permits the development of a policy for the outermost regions
aimed at combating and removing the constraints arising from their outlying status, how does the
Commission intend to implement such a policy?

2. Will the Commission consider drawing up a global sustainable development programme for the
outermost regions, including a definition of fields of action, measures to be undertaken, and resources
for implementing them?

3. How does the Commission intend to tackle the problem of the financing of measures in the outermost
regions which are not eligible for funding under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or other
instruments?

4. When and in what form will the Commission submit the report announced in Seville?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

The Commission took note of the conclusions of the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) and set
up the mechanisms for preparation of the comprehensive report that is awaited and whatever proposals
may be appropriate.