WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/03 by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Quality promotion.
Date: 2003-03-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, aid to agriculture, implementation of the budget, reform of the CAP, sales promotion

C 65 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Article 20(3) of this directive asks the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and to the
Council, not later than 3 July 2002, a report on technical progress to reduce limit values for lawn mowers
and lawn trimmers. This report should be accompanied,
if appropriate, by a proposal to amend this
directive in order to replace the indicative figures in Article 12. The Commission has until now not
delivered a report (February 2003).

Will the Commission explain the reasons for the delay in putting forward a report and a proposal for a
revision, in accordance with Article 20(3) of Directive 2000/14/EC? By when does the Commission expect
to come out with these two documents?

Will it give an overview of the activities currently carried out by the Commission to make sure that the
report on the implementation of the Directive, in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Directive, will be
ready by 3 January 2005?

(1) OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Directive 2000/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use
outdoors (1) harmonises the law of the Member States relating to noise emission standards for equipment
for use outdoors. For lawnmowers it sets limit values to be applied from 2003 as well as a set of indicative
values which could be applied from 2006.

Article 20(3) of this Directive requires the Commission to submit to the Parliament and to the Council a
report on technical progress to reduce limit values for lawn mowers and lawn trimmers/lawn edge
trimmers and, if appropriate, a proposal to amend the Directive. A technical report was commissioned
from a research establishment on the technical progress of noise reduction in lawnmowers. In 2002 the
Commission received the report and subsequently a position paper from a working group charged with
reviewing the report. Further work was initiated to assess the economic implications of the findings. When
completed, the Commission will prepare the report to the Parliament and the Council. It is included in the
Commission’s work programme for 2003 and expected to be submitted accordingly to the Parliament and
the Council.

With a view to the review of the Directive as set out in its Article 20, the Commission has started the
is
review of the experience from its implementation with the Committee set up under its Article 18,
collecting noise data as required under its Article 16, and is setting up a working group of stakeholders and
Member State experts to assist the Commission in assessing the technical issues linked to the review.

(1) OJ L 162, 3.7.2000.

(2004/C 65 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/03

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Quality promotion

The Commission’s proposal over the reform of the CAP provides for Regulation (EC) 2826/2000 (1) on
internal promotion of agricultural products to be abolished in 2005, although the projects funded under
this regulation have hardly got underway. The Commission wishes to replace the regulation, which is
geared to generic campaigns, with a new measure within the Rural Development chapter, aimed at
promoting quality labels, arguing the need to avoid double funding.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/49

Independently of the fact that the reason adduced by the Commission is completely unfounded, since the
two initiatives have totally different objectives, and indeed could be said to be in opposition to each other,
can the Commission explain why the decision to be taken by the Fifteen on the reform is being
pre-empted by cutting the budget for Regulation EC 2826/2000 now, in 2003? The reasons advance
reasons adduced by the Commission service claim that the cutback is due to the poor quality of many of
the projects submitted for 2002. Does the Commission believe that this is the most appropriate way of
motivating and educating those concerned?

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

It is right that the first series of promotion and information programmes for agricultural products under
Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for
agricultural products on the internal market, were decided in August 2002. That is also the reason why
budget credits for Community internal market promotion measures amounting to EUR 50,3 million were
utilised only up to EUR 15 448 million (Budget year 2002). For 2003, Budget credits are foreseen for
EUR 46,5 million (Budget lines B1-3800 and B1-3810) and the preview of utilisation shows better results
for this year.

The Commission can confirm that one of the reasons for the low consumption of budget credits is due to
the quality of the submitted promotion proposals. Out of 120 proposals received, only 40 proposals, from
professional organisations from 14 Member States, could be accepted as conform to the discipline of the
Regulation and the guidelines for promotion programmes.

Concerning the replacement of Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 by a new measure under the Rural
Development Proposal within the Common agricultural policy (CAP) Reform proposal,
is worth
mentioning, that following the actual state of the debate of this proposal in the Parliament and in the
Council, the Commission is analysing the possibility of coexistence of both regimes, taking care to exclude
any overlapping.

it

(2004/C 65 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Prudential supervision

Is the Commission satisfied that the current arrangements for the prudential supervision of Lloyd’s

1.
insurance market are compliant with EU directives?

2.
Is the Commission satisfied that the arrangements over the last 20 years for the United Kingdom’s
prudential supervision of the Lloyd’s insurance market have been compliant with EU directives at all
stages?

3.

If not, would the UK Government bear some responsibility to investors in that market?

4. What avenues of redress might they have under EU law?