WRITTEN QUESTION P-2008/03 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fowl-pest crisis in Belgium — compensation for the damage caused to the poultry sector.
Date: 2003-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU financing, State aid, agricultural situation, agro-industry, aid to agriculture, animal disease, control of State aid, indemnification, poultry farming

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/197

To date, only part of the Stavros-Elefsina section has been opened, while the western ring-road at Avenue
Ymittou is expected to open in the autumn of 2003, some 30 months after the airport became
operational.

Has the Commission been monitoring the operation of

1.
compliance by the contracting parties with their obligations since the completion of the project?

the Eleftherios Venizelos airport and

Is there provision for a post-project evaluation by the Commission and, if so, when is it expected to

2.
be carried out?

Under what conditions are the penalty clauses activated? Has the contractor claimed compensation

3.
from the Greek authorities for failure to complete the access roads on time?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) does not assign any
competence to the Commission to monitor the operation of a project once completed. During the
operation of the airport, the Commission would intervene only if it had evidence of failure to comply with
European Union legislation. The Commission does not have any such evidence at present.

The question of compliance with the contract between Greece and the concessionaire (penalty clauses,
compensation, etc.) does not fall within the Commission’s remit. Nevertheless, the national authorities have
informed the Commission that no procedure has been launched by the concessionaire to activate penalty
clauses.

The Commission intends to carry out an ex-post evaluation of the projects part-financed by the Cohesion
Fund as provided for in the regulations. A report on that evaluation will be ready mid-2004 and will be
made available to Parliament.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(2004/C 33 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2008/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Fowl-pest crisis in Belgium (cid:1) compensation for the damage caused to the poultry sector

In late May, the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health held a further
meeting in order to discuss the fowl-pest situation in a number of European countries. The Committee
decided, inter alia, to relax even further the measures taken to combat fowl pest in Belgium.

The Belgian Government decided to compensate the poultry farmers affected for (some of) the damage
which they had suffered. However, it cannot be denied that the fowl-pest crisis is causing heavy losses for
every section of the poultry sector. The crisis has resulted in heavy financial losses for the animal feed
industry, hatcheries, poultry slaughterhouses, poultry-cutting plants, poultry wholesalers and the exporting
firms in the sector. However, there is, unfortunately, no provision for them to receive any financial
compensation.

Given the importance of the Belgian poultry sector for the Belgian economy and for employment, is the
Commission considering paying compensation to operators in the sector other than poultry farmers? If so,
for what amount? Would there be any objection to the Federal Government and/or Regional Governments
in Belgium giving financial support to the operators in the sector other than poultry farmers who have
suffered losses?

C 33 E/198

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Belgium may obtain a financial contribution from the Community up to 50 % of the expenditure for
emergency measures as detailed in Article 3 (1) of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 (1), on
expenditure in the veterinary field that are provisions to eradicate and control the epidemics.

The Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2) apply to all State aids granted in
connection with activities related to the production, processing and marketing of Annex I products. State
aid measures relating to outbreaks of animal diseases are to be assessed under the provisions of section 11
of these guidelines.

While section 11 allows aids to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of
agricultural production, it does not allow support to compensate processors. Where processors are in
financial difficulties, however, rescue and restructuring aid may be possible provided that the relevant
provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (3)
are complied with.

Moreover, the Commission has already emphasised insurance policies as a mean to deal with indirect
losses caused by large outbreaks of animal diseases.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.
(3) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.

(2004/C 33 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: EU funds disbursed by Catholic organisations in the period 1997-2002

Solidarity is one of the fundamental values of the EU. The European Union finances a significant
proportion of the humanitarian assistance and development aid provided throughout the world. Non-
governmental organisations, including Catholic organisations, operate on the front line in areas of the
world which require aid, and they make a praiseworthy contribution to the overall effort.

1. What amounts did the following organisations, which are run by the Catholic Church, receive from
the EU in the period 1997-2002:

(a)

the Caritas Europa network

(b)

the more than 50 member organisations of the Caritas Europa network

(c)

the CIDSE network (International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity)

(d)

the 14 member organisations of CIDSE

(e)

the International Catholic Child Bureau (BICE)

(f)

the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)

(g)

the European Association for Catholic Adult Education (FEECA)?

2. What projects were financed by means of EU funds inside and outside the EU’s borders?

3.

From which programmes were funds granted for the individual projects?