WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Repeal of Commission rules on traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, export, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), sugar industry, supply

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/173

(2004/C 33 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1804/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Withdrawal by the Commission of proceedings against Sinaga following an ECJ decision

The Commission, acting in breach of the principle of the separation of powers which applies in all
democratic systems, took out legal proceedings against the Azores sugar refinery (Case C 2002-1098), over
a matter then being examined by the European Court of Justice.

The Court, in point 4 of the conclusions of its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00, rejected the
proposal of the sugar industry and the Commission for a ban on the marketing of unrefined sugar from
the Azores, thus removing the basis for both the legal proceedings and the associated financial sanctions
imposed on Portugal.

Is the Commission aware of the severe damage which has been caused to agriculture and industry in the
Azores by its action taken independently of the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR v Sinaga (not yet published) the Court of Justice,
in answer to the referring court’s fourth question, confirmed the principle of free shipment to mainland
Portugal of white sugar produced from Azores sugarbeet.

The Commission welcomes the Court of Justice’s confirmation of that principle, which is in line with the
comments it presented and furthermore coincided with the view expressed by the Portuguese Government
and Sinaga.

In the Commission’s opinion, banning shipment of products which have been obtained in the Azores with
support for local production would have been highly detrimental to that outermost region’s agriculture.

The Commission has neither instituted infringement proceedings against, nor considered applying a
financial correction to, the Portuguese Republic in respect of shipment of white sugar produced from
Azores sugarbeet.

(2004/C 33 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Repeal of Commission rules on traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores

The European Court of Justice’s ruling of 15 May 2003 on Case C-282/00 establishes (point 46) that
responsibility for the determination of traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores lies with the
national courts.

When does the Commission intend to repeal
its legislation relating to implementing provisions,
particular Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (1), which runs contrary to the Court decision?

in

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 1.

C 33 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR v Sinaga (not yet published), the Court of Justice
held that it was for the referring court to assess whether shipments of sugar which had been refined in
the Azores and which had benefited from the specific supply arrangements forming the subject of the
main action possessed the characteristics of traditional shipments.

The Court of Justice stated in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment that

… if the Community legislature intended to take account of traditional trade flows it was not for the
purpose of acknowledging historical rights but in order to prevent the introduction of the specific
supply arrangements, intended for the benefit of the Azores, from resulting in the loss of markets on
which their products were regularly sold.

It follows that the shipments of sugar must satisfy relatively strict conditions in order to be classified
as traditional trade flows or traditional shipments. Those requirements refer as much to the magnitude
of the shipments as to their frequency and the fact that they are ongoing. Sporadic and small-scale
shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those requirements.

The Commission considers that the practice followed up to now of quantifying the volume of products
which may be re-exported or reshipped on the basis of the average annual volume of shipments/exports in
the three years before Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (1) entered into force is in accordance with the
principles stated by the Court of Justice in the above judgment.

The Commission does not therefore intend to repeal Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (2) at this stage.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/02 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira

relating to certain agricultural products (cid:1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 of 28 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the
specific supply arrangements for the outermost regions introduced by Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC)
No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001 (cid:1) OJ L 8, 11.1.2002.

(2004/C 33 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1825/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact study on the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS-17 highway

(Asturias, Spain)

In its answer to Written Question E-1801/02 (1) on the same subject the Commission said that Annex IV
of Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment lists the information to
be provided by a developer, including an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the
main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

Since 5 August 2002, when the answer was received, has the Commission contacted the Spanish
authorities to find out about the possible alternatives to the route concerned?

Is the Commission aware of the irreparable damage that may be caused by a route which does not take
account of an alternative whose environmental impact would be minimal?

Since this is an urgent matter, what steps will the Commission take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities in
order to obtain the relevant information?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 137.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.