WRITTEN QUESTION P-1395/03 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Siting of the headquarters of the European Food Safety Agency.
Date: 2003-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brussels region, European Food Safety Authority, competence of the Member States, head of government, seat of institution, transitional period (EU)

C 242 E/228

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

(2003/C 242 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1395/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Siting of the headquarters of the European Food Safety Agency

According to newspaper reports citing Finnish diplomatic sources, the governments of Italy and Finland
have come to an agreement to subdivide the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) into two offices, which
would be based in Parma and Helsinki respectively. These reports also indicate that this agreement already
has the support of the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and that the Agriculture
Commissioner, Franz Fischler, would not object to the agency being split into two, which would surely
contradict the repeated public statements made by Commissioner Byrne.

This a matter of great
(Barcelona, Helsinki, Lille and Parma) are candidates to play host
Parliament has been called to adopt repeated positions on this subject.

importance with regard to the agency and its duties, because several cities
to its headquarters and because

Given these circumstances and in the light of the fact that a final decision on the EFSA headquarters has
been pending since the Laeken European Council of 19 December 2001, when it was agreed to
provisionally site the agency in Brussels despite the fact that this transience and attendant uncertainty will
adversely affect the work the Agency is already in a position to do and its chances of recruiting experts,
thereby fuelling the concerns of European citizens who have already had to cope with several food safety
crises in recent years:

What information does the Commission have concerning this supposed agreement?

What has been the European Commission’s role in this matter, bearing in mind that it is for the Council to
take the final decision?

Is it true that the agreement between Italy and Finland has the Commission’s support?

If so, what are the grounds and reasoning behind the Commission’s opting for this solution?

If this is not the case, given that no formal decision has yet been taken on the EFSA headquarters, what
effect does the Commission feel this transience will have on work at the Agency’s temporary headquarters
in Brussels and on the officials currently employed there?

Has the Commission received any request from the Spanish Government for it to consider or clarify its
position with regard to Barcelona’s candidature?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The European Council agreed in Laeken (19 December 2001) to resolve the question of the European
Food Safety Authority’s final location as part of an overall agreement on the headquarters of the various
new European agencies.

Since it did not wish to jeopardise plans for the Authority to begin its operations in 2002, as agreed at the
Nice Summit and confirmed in Gothenburg, it agreed at this point that the Authority could begin its work
in Brussels until this overall agreement was reached.

This solution allowed the Authority to get operations under way quickly. The Authority’s Management
Board has been in operation since September 2002 and its Executive Director and Advisory Forum have
been in place since the beginning of 2003. Its Scientific Committee and Panels are currently being set up.
An initial core of staff, mainly scientists, is also in place.

The Commission has also seen the newspaper reports regarding a possible agreement between the Italian
and Finnish Governments concerning the Authority’s headquarters.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/229

However, according to current institutional practice, the decision on agencies’ headquarters is taken jointly
by the Heads of Government of the Member States. An agreement between two governments does not
therefore carry enough weight to determine an agency’s headquarters.

The Commission has on several occasions stated its views in this debate, pointing out the importance of
operational requirements for the efficient running of the Authority: the need for a central location and
easy access which is compatible with the need to be able to work in close contact with the Community
officials responsible for risk management, particularly crisis management. However, it has not backed any
particular candidate.

The Commission is trying to minimise any negative effects of provisionally siting the Authority in Brussels.
It has introduced specific provisions to ensure that the Authority, like other agencies with provisional
headquarters (maritime and aviation), has suitable premises. Recruitment procedures already completed or
ongoing have resulted in the recruitment of high-level, highly-qualified staff, and the process of setting up
the Authority and its various bodies is moving forward at a satisfactory pace.

All the cities applying to host the Authority’s headquarters (Barcelona, Helsinki, Lille and Parma) have sent
the Commission detailed information on the conditions which they are offering for setting up and running
the Authority. It is not up to the Commission to comment on the applications, as current institutional
practice dictates that it is the Heads of Government of the Member States who assess the applications and
come to a decision.

(2003/C 242 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils

derived from milk, milk products

A table containing data on the quantities and value in euro of products eligible for export refunds was
appended to the supplementary answer to question P-3202/02 (1).

Examination of this table shows that, for exports to the Vatican City State of ‘butter and other fats and oils
derived from milk, milk products’ (code 0405):

(a)

(b)

in 1998 exports from Austria totalled 155 kg for a refund of EUR 272 200,57, equivalent to aid of
EUR 1 756,13 per kg of butter exported;

in 1999 exports from Italy totalled 0,064 kg for a refund of EUR 402,90, equivalent to aid of
EUR 6 295,31 per kg of butter exported;

In all likelihood, 155 000 kg were exported in 1998 and around 230 kg in 2000, at a more credible level
of aid of between EUR 1,76 and EUR 1,75 per kg of butter exported.

If one were to make these corrections, total exports would be 174 215,50 kg for 1998, 156 230 kg for
1999, 145 560 kg for 2000 and 146 200 kg for 2001.

Under Regulation (EC) No 419/2002 (2), it should also be possible for the tabular data, extracted from the
CATS database, to be used for monitoring and forecasting purposes.

It is specified in the table that the units of measurement, weights or quantities and the amounts in euro are
provided by the Member States.