WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Financial corrections.
Date: 2003-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, EU financing arrangements, Portugal, closing of accounts, public institution

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/475

For the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation on the Structural Funds (1)
provides that an operation retains the contribution from the Funds if that operation does not, within five
years of the date of the decision awarding it, undergo a substantial modification affecting its nature or its
implementation conditions and resulting either from a cessation or change of location in a productive
activity. If this is the case, the Member State must inform the Commission and undertake the financial
corrections required, by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants
awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations are carried out and payments made on the
basis of the legislation in force.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 84 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1697/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Consumer fraud involving cat and dog skins

(22 May 2003)

A BBC programme claims that hundreds of consumers in Europe are victims of fraud because they are
unwittingly buying furs manufactured in Europe from cat and dog skins.

The same programme reports that hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs worldwide are killed each year
by shady operators seeking to make a profit by selling their skins in Europe, without any clear indication
of the origin of their ‘products’.

In view of the fact that consumer protection is one of the fundamental policies of the EU, will the
Commission say what practical measures it will take to put an end to this travesty of a trade which is not
only an abhorrent practice but also constitutes consumer fraud?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

At present, the Commission has no information that confirms that cats and dogs are farmed for their fur
in the Union or in the ten Acceding Countries.

The Commission does not ignore the issue of imports of cat and dog furs. The Commission is currently
examining the questions raised taking into consideration the respective requirements of World Trade
Organisation (WTO) law, legal bases under Community law and the interplay with existing legislation to
prevent consumer deception.

(2004/C 84 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject: Financial corrections

In its reply concerning paragraph 2.57 of the 2001 Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (1) the
Commission states ‘as part of the follow-up to the 2001 clearance process the Commission services have
informed the Portuguese authorities that a financial correction of 2 % of Ifadap expenditure is proposed
(EUR 2,8 million)’.

C 84 E/476

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Can the Commission explain exactly what prompted it to impose the financial correction of EUR 2,8 million
on Ifadap?

(1) OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 58.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The financial correction in question has not yet reached the final accounts clearance procedure, which
includes a hearing stage at which the Member State can put forward its arguments.

If a financial correction decision is adopted we shall inform the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 84 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty

With the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS), Denmark is in breach of Articles 82 and 86 of
the Treaty as a result of Carlsberg’s dominant position on the Danish market combined with Carlsberg’s
dominant influence over DRS A/S. DRS A/S is a private company which has obtained sole and exclusive
right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark. Carlsberg, however, controls DRS completely
as it has the majority shareholding in DRS Holding and the holding company owns 85 % of the shares in
DRS A/S. Furthermore, Carlsberg holds most of the seats on the boards of both DRS Holding and DRS A/S
(see previous question E-3828/02 (1)). DRS A/S has sole and exclusive right to operate the deposit and
return system with which all companies marketing beer and soft drinks must be registered. The exclusive
right comprises the collection of disposable packaging but not collection of reusable packaging which can
be organised by the bottling plants themselves. This means that there is no competition on the Danish
market for the collection of disposable packaging, which is a breach of Article 82 in that the company
concerned, simply by exercising its exclusive right, cannot avoid abusing its dominant position or the
exclusive right is likely to create a situation in which the company is induced to commit abuse. By giving
sole and exclusive right to DRS A/S, which is effectively controlled by Carlsberg, DRS A/S is placed in a
conflict of interests,
‘inter alia’ by giving board members access to sensitive business information about
their competitors on the Danish beer and soft drinks market.

Will the Commission intervene in response to this breach of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS) which has obtained
the exclusive right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark.

According to the case law of the European Court of Justice merely creating a dominant position is not, in
itself, incompatible with Article 82 of the EC Treaty. There can be a breach of the prohibitions contained
in Articles 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty if the undertaking in question, by exercising the exclusive rights