WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations.
Date: 2003-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, co-financing, common organisation of markets, fruit, market intervention, producer organisation, vegetable

C 78 E/442

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

It is true that the EU has in a number of cases where the essential elements of the agreement have been
infringed suspended some provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions of
the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti
(2000) and Liberia (2001). What infringements of essential elements took place in these six countries?

In the case of Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995) the signature of the
cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights.
is of
course a broad term. What kind of infringements of human rights were involved in this case in these four
countries?

‘Human rights’

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission places great emphasis on the human rights clause in agreements of the Community with
third countries as a positive instrument to promote human rights and democracy. Structured exchanges on
the basis of the clause with third countries offer a more realistic way of realising the goals of the human
rights’ clause than the application of rigid criteria for the suspension of parts of an agreement.
there are circumstances when punitive measures may be
Nevertheless,
required. Where such measures are eventually taken after careful assessment of the prevailing particular
situation in a country, it is important that timely consideration is given not only to the impact of the
measures but also as to what conditions will govern their lifting.

the Commission agrees that

Since 1996, the human rights clause has been invoked on a number of occasions, including in the case of
the countries mentioned by the Honourable Member, for justifying the request for formal consultations
with a third country, or suspending cooperation and imposing other sanctions. In all of these cases, the
political, democratic and human rights situations in the respective country were carefully assessed. In
doing so, the Commission avoided employing any ‘mechanistic’ or ‘typological’ approach, which would
have failed to provide the necessary comprehensive appreciation of a precarious situation in third country
concerned.

The Commission pursues the same approach in deciding on whether to slow down or suspend
negotiations on a bilateral agreement or the signature of such an agreement, as mentioned by the
Honourable Member.

(2004/C 78 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (1) provides for Community financial assistance for producer organisations on
condition that they have established an operational programme and set up an operational fund.

Operational funds are financed from producer contributions and Community assistance representing a
maximum 4,1 % of the producer organisation’s sales. The funding ratio is 50 %: 50 % in the case of
national measures. That means that in such cases the operational fund represents a maximum 8,2 % of
sales.

In the case of transnational measures the funding ratio is 60 %: 40 %. However, a problem arises here in so
far as the percentage of assistance remains fixed at a maximum 4,1 %. That means in effect that the
operational fund is restricted in the case of transnational cooperation, although it is precisely such
cooperation that the regulation seeks to promote.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/443

Does the Commission recognise this problem? If so, will it very shortly be taking measures to rectify this
contradiction in the legislation by permitting a derogation from the maximum percentage of assistance of
4,1 % in the case of transnational producer organisations?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

In line with the commitments it has made to Parliament in particular the Commission has already devoted
a great deal of attention to simplifying and clarifying the implementing rules for common organisation of
the market in fruit and vegetables.

It has, in close consultation with Member States and interested parties, identified a number of problems to
be tackled, including that raised by the Honourable Member, who correctly states that the present 4,1 %
aid ceiling often makes it difficult in practice to apply a Community part-financing rate of 60 %.

The Commission is reflecting on possible solutions. The budgetary implications of various options will be
examined and the budget neutrality requirement reflected in the proposal for amendment of Regulation
(EC) No 2200/96 (1) that the Commission will be making to the Council in furtherance of the ongoing
process of simplifying this particular market organisation.

Simplification will be carried out as quickly as the work programme of the Institutions involved permits.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in fruit and

vegetables.

(2004/C 78 E/0465)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Risks of electricity blackouts

On Thursday, 28 August 2003, parts of southern London were hit by an electricity blackout thanks to
which some 250 000 people were immobilised in trains, on the underground, in lifts and at crossroads.
A spokesman for the management of National Grid, the British electricity distribution network, claimed
this was an ‘unusual occurrence’ which, even in the wake of the recent blackout in the US, he had never
thought could happen in the UK.

In Italy, the Ministry for Productive Activities has announced that new infrastructures will be put in place
by 2005, while a management spokesman for the national distribution network has warned that there will
be more blackouts over the next two years.

Does the Commission consider that the privatisation of infrastructures could be the cause of these

1.
occurrences?

2. What initiatives will the Commission take to ensure that the infrastructure development plans are
compatible with the growth trends of individual countries’ productive and social needs?