WRITTEN QUESTION E-1958/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Figures on payments under the EAGGF Guarantee Section.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU Member State, EU expenditure, EU statistics, aid recipient

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/165

in view of the fact that the long-standing problem of eco-points applied unilaterally by
Furthermore,
Austria has been challenged by all the other Member States and is going to be abolished as a result of
European Parliament pressure, can the Council say:

1. whether it does not consider, once again, that the Austrian Government and the Tyrolean regional
government are contravening the EU Treaty as regards rules concerning the free movement of goods
and persons;

2. what steps it intends to take to ensure the withdrawal of these unilateral decisions, which do not

correspond to Community law;

3. whether it does not consider that these repeated violations of the Treaty should be brought before the

Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council recalls that it is up to the Commission, in its capacity as Guardian of the Treaty, to undertake
the necessary actions (cid:1) including, as the case may be, an action before the Court of Justice (cid:1) in order to
ascertain whether the driving ban to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers constitutes a violation of
Community law. In this context, the Council is aware that the Commission is already engaged in the
process of undertaking the actions which it deems necessary.

(2004/C 51 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1958/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Figures on payments under the EAGGF Guarantee Section

In his Written Question P-3775/02 (1) António Campos asked the Commission about ‘the total amount of
money spent each year by the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100 largest beneficiaries in each Member
State’. The Commission’s answer, however, relates only to direct aid, which accounts for no more than
about 60 % of aggregate EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure.

Does the Commission not have information in the CATS database that would enable it to answer
Mr Campos’s question about EAGGF Guarantee Section funding as a whole?

What is the total amount of money spent each year under the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100
largest beneficiaries in each Member State, including expenditure over and above direct aid?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 138.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Two tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat show for 14
Member States (1) the total amounts and the percentages which are perceived by the 100 most important
recipients of direct aid (in the sense of Council Regulation (CE) No 1259/1999 (2)) and other aid paid under
the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee (3).

For the table relating to the other payments under EAGGF Guarantee it is essential to elaborate on the
following points, also in order to explain why a relatively large part of these aid payments is paid to a
limited number of recipients.

C 51 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The recipients of Community aid for some market instruments such as export refunds, public storage or
other market disposal measures are normally companies or institutional units. Nonetheless, the purpose of
these measures is to balance the agricultural markets and to maintain a reasonable price level and therefore
to assure a fair income to farmers. Therefore, the farmers are of course the ultimate beneficiaries of these
support systems even if no direct aid payments are perceived by them.

Certain common market organisations such as for fruit and vegetables, bananas or tobacco are managed in
a way that payments are normally made to producer organisations. Some of these producer organisations
count for several hundred members and therefore the amounts involved are important. Nevertheless, the
producer organisations receive the payments in order to transmit them to the final beneficiaries. However,
these transactions latter are not contained in the CATS database.

The common market organisation for sugar provides support mechanisms that are not geared at farmers
directly. Such measures are export refunds, production refunds granted on the use of certain eligible
products by the chemical industry or marketing aids for sugar produced and refining aids for refining
certain raw sugars into white sugar. Here again the farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries of these support
systems even if they do not perceive direct aid payments.

Certain market instruments provide that the aid payments are made to the processors of the commodities
concerned, such as dried fodder or cotton. Clearly, the farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries of these
support systems even if they do not perceive direct aid payments.

The table excludes negative amounts caused by sanctions, recoveries and penalties.

The table does not include the payments made for rural development aid under the EAGGF Guarantee
section. The nature of these aid payments does not allow that the CATS database contains complete data
for all payments made to final beneficiaries under this regime.

As a final point it is underlined that, following the policy changes proposed by the Commission, the share
of the non direct aid schemes in relation to the direct aid schemes has substantially decreased and this
trend is continuing. Over the last ten years the support through other EAGGF Guarantee aid payments has
dropped from 91 % of our budget to some 35 % in 2001.

For Greece no sufficient data is available.

(1)
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes

under the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) The figures concern the financial year 2000.

(2004/C 51 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Exemptions from permit requirements of the 1975 Waste Directive

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-
2000 (1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under
Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports
submitted by Member States.

Article 11 of the 1975 Waste Directive 75/442/EEC (2) allows Member States to exempt establishments and
undertakings carrying out their own waste disposal at the place of production or recovery operations from
the permit requirements set out in Articles 9 and 10 of the Directive.