WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Penalisation of Portuguese farmers.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, agricultural quota, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, dairy production, producer co-responsibility

C 84 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Over the last few years the Commission has taken the following action:

(cid:1) in 1997 it increased the aid for Sinaga for processing Azorean beet into sugar from EUR 100 to

EUR 270/tonne;

(cid:1) in 2000 it proposed to the Council a 66 % increase in the aid for land under sugar beet from EUR 500
to EUR 800/hectare. The Council adopted the Commission’s proposal in Regulation (EC) No 1453/
2001 (1).

The Commission encourages the sugar sector in the Azores by means of measures that are quite
2.
exceptional compared with the mechanisms applied in the rest of the Community under the common
market organisation for sugar. In particular, beet growers and the Azorean sugar company are allowed to
produce up to 9 953 tonnes of sugar per year from Azorean beet, and the sugar company is allowed to
refine raw beet sugar purchased with a refund or on the world market under the specific supply
arrangements, within the limits of the consumption needs of the Azores, which are currently estimated at
6 500 tonnes per year.

The Commission deeply regrets the fact that, despite its efforts in the sector, the production of sugar from
Azorean beet was only 700 tonnes in 2002.

3.

Sugar produced from Azorean beet may be marketed freely on markets outside the Azores.

for which Sinaga is supplied under the specific supply
By contrast, sugar refined in the Azores,
arrangements, is intended to meet the requirements of the Azores themselves and may not be exported or
shipped from the Azores, with the exception of traditional quantities. The Court of Justice recently ruled
on the concept of
the
Commission’s approach in considering traditional shipments or exports to be the average trade flows
over the three years preceding the entry into force of the Poseima regime in 1992, i.e. 1989, 1990 and
1991. The Court of Justice ruled that the shipments had to be ‘ongoing, regular and significant ’… ‘at the
time that the Poseima Programme was implemented’ and that ‘Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in
the past cannot satisfy those requirements’.

It confirmed the correctness of

‘traditional quantities’

in case C-282/00.

As regards the future development of the Community sugar sector,
in the last quarter of 2003 the
Commission will present a communication on the reform of the common market organisation for the
sector.
take account of the special situation regarding sugar
production in the outermost regions, so that the new balance of production and supply in the European
Union does not entail any deterioration for the regions concerned.

the Commission will

In its initiatives,

Also, the support instruments for processing businesses in the outermost regions, including the Azores,
will be reviewed in the report on an overall strategy for sustainable development in the outermost regions
which the Commission must adopt by the end of 2003.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural
products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima), OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Penalisation of Portuguese farmers

At a recent meeting with milk producers from northern Portugal I was confronted with reports of the
unjust treatment of Portuguese farmers who had exceeded the milk quota up to the end of March 2003.

These farmers have received penalties, whilst in Italy it has just been announced that an agreement has
been approved to resolve the problem of Italian farmers in the same situation.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/23

Can the Council provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and the measures
which are being provided for or will be taken to remedy this injustice against Portuguese farmers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation
of the market in milk and milk products introduced an additional levy scheme in that sector. The scheme
has been extended several
times, notably by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an
additional levy in the milk and milk products sector. All Member States are obliged to comply with their
respective reference quantities and must pay the Community, by way of the additional levy, an amount
corresponding to any excess quantities produced.

The Council Decision of 16 July 2003, establishing the compatibility of the aid which the Italian Republic
intends to grant its milk producers and published (1), lays down the following specific conditions:

(cid:1) the amounts owed to the Community by Italian milk producers by virtue of the additional levy on
milk and milk products for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 to be advanced by the Italian
Government,

(cid:1) deferred payment of the debt by the producers in a number of equal annual instalments, without

interest, over a period not exceeding 14 years.

That specific Decision, based on the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, was adopted
unanimously by the members of the Council, on the basis of an assessment of the exceptional nature of
the circumstances which prompted the Italian Government’s request. Application of such a measure in
other cases that might be considered comparable would therefore be a matter for individual assessment by
the Council.

The Council also refers the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the European Council meeting in
Brussels on 16/17 October 2003 and particularly to paragraph 38 of the conclusions in which the
European Council welcomed the Commission’s proposal to prolong the arrangement concerning the
problems linked to the development of milk production in the Azores and invited the Council to examine
it as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

With reference to Oral Question H-0036/02 (1) regarding the conditions under which prisoners taken
during the Afghanistan war are being held by the USA in Guantanamo Bay, will the Council please list all
citizens of Member States being held there? Will the Council please clarify whether the conditions under
which those prisoners are being held, and the duration of their incarceration, comply with the terms of the
Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Will the Council please outline the basis on which the military
tribunals proposed by the USA comply with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial? Will the
Council please indicate what action it is taking to ensure that the US is in full compliance with Geneva
Conventions and what response it is receiving from US authorities in this regard?

(1) Written answer, 6.2.2002.