WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee Section paying agencies in Portugal.
Date: 2003-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, Portugal, closing of accounts

C 33 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

However, in the case of substantial differences in the applicant’s qualifications and professional experience
vis-à-vis the qualifications required in the Host State, the authorities of the latter may require the applicant
to have already completed up to four years of relevant professional experience or to undergo a
compensation measure, at the applicant’s choice, in the form of either a period of supervised practise or an
aptitude test (see Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the said Directive). The decision has to be taken within four months
of the receipt of the application, be reasoned and subject to judicial review. The same principles apply for
the provision of services although the decision should be taken with the utmost celerity so as not to hinder
or render impossible the provision of the services in question.

When the profession is not regulated, as seems to be the case in Estonia, no legal requirements apply to its
exercise and therefore there is no need to apply any recognition mechanism. In any case, the Commission
will continue to verify that all Community Directives on the recognition of professional qualifications, and
Directive 89/48/EEC in particular, will be fully and correctly implemented in Estonia.

As regards rules on free movement of workers, under article 36 of the association agreement between the
Communities and their Member States and Estonia, the principle of non discrimination applies to nationals
of a Member State who are legally employed in the territory of Estonia as regards working conditions,
remuneration or dismissal. From the information provided by the Honourable Member it does not follow
necessarily that Finnish engineers are being discriminated against on these aspects.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2004/C 33 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee Section paying agencies in Portugal

According to information published in Official
Journal L 114 of 8 May 2003, the Commission has
decided, in the context of the clearance of accounts for the EAGGF Guarantee Section, to make significant
reductions to the amounts allocated in various Member States.

Taking account of the volume of funding involved, these reductions were particularly large in Luxembourg,
Greece and Portugal, and may become even more severe in the case of Portugal owing to the
postponement of the decision on clearance of the accounts for IFADAP.

Can the Commission provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for these cuts in the appropriations
earmarked for Portuguese agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

In its Decision 2003/313/EC of 7 May 2003 (1), the Commission cleared the accounts of Member States’
expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee
Section, for the 2002 financial year, under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (2).

The Decision relates to the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted and does not
prejudge any decision taken subsequently on the compliance of the expenditure with Community rules.

The bookkeeping procedures behind this Decision are explained in detail in its fifth recital. The result of
the clearance operation is reflected in the Decision as a possible discrepancy between the total expenditure
booked to the accounts for the financial year in question under Article 151(1) and Article 152 of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (3) and the total expenditure accepted by the Commission in its
Decision.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/213

In determining total expenditure in the case of Portugal, the Commission took account in particular of the
penalties provided for in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 (4) in the area of rural development,
corrections for failure to meet
the payment deadlines laid down for the various common market
organisations and the annual expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the net financial impact on Portugal of
the accounts clearance Decision for the 2002 financial year is in fact an amount of EUR 483 840,10
payable to that Member State.

(1) 2003/313/EC: Commission Decision of 7 May 2003 on the clearance of

the accounts of Member States’
expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for
the 2002 financial year, OJ L 114, 8.5.2003.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy,

OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2004/C 33 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: SARS emergency: preventive measures

SARS, or atypical pneumonia, a disease whose origins have not yet been established and for which thee is
so far no cure, has become the new plague of the third millennium, thanks to the ease with which it
spreads. By reason of its contagiousness it is affecting dozens of new victims every day, mostly in China
and South-East Asia.

Effective preventive measures against the spread of SARS must meet a number of minimum joint criteria
in all countries, and even more so in the EU Member States, given the urgent need to implement
preventive measures to combat this disease.

1.
Can the Commission state whether it believes it is necessary to promote and cofinance a large-scale,
Europe-wide information campaign (e.g. on the lines followed in Singapore and Taiwan) with a view to
establishing how SARS is transmitted and determining the precautions needed to prevent contagion?

2.
Does the Commission consider it necessary to propose introducing checks (e.g. temperature controls)
at all the EU’s external borders, in view of the speed and apparent ease of transmission of SARS and the
circumstances of its presence in a number of third countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The public health measures put in place by the Member States, facilitated through the Union’s network for
the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community working under
Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 (1), have already
been able to contain the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in the Union. As there is
no local transmission an information campaign based on those countries where the disease was rampant
was not necessary. The Commission has agreed an action plan with Health Ministries to ensure better
preparedness in the future and an information campaign would be considered as part of this plan for the
future (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/phthreats/com/sars/sars_en.htm).