WRITTEN QUESTION P-2976/03 by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission. Export refunds for ovalbumin — my question P-2696/03.
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, World Trade Organisation, agricultural product, animal protein, egg, export policy, export refund, tariff policy

C 70 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

the 1972 Act of Accession. The Court of

the
Article 102 of
Community’s authority, confirming that it has replaced that of the Member States in both Community
waters and beyond these. The Community’s exclusive authority where non-Community waters are
concerned involves international commitments entered into with either individual countries (negotiation
and conclusion of agreements) or groups of countries (Community representation in international fishery
organisations) (1).

Justice has determined the range of

The scope of the common fisheries policy was recently confirmed by Article 1 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2371/2002 (2). Thus there are two aspects to the Community’s authority: it embraces live aquatic
resources, aquaculture, and the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products in waters
falling under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States, and covers all fishing activities in these
waters, whether carried out by fishermen and vessels of the Member States or by those of other countries;
it takes in all fishing by fishermen and vessels of the Member States both within Community waters and
on the high seas and within the fishing zones of other countries, in the latter instances in conformity with
the rules of international law.

The regulatory corpus of the common fisheries policy is directly applicable in the Member States’ domestic
legal systems and takes precedence over their domestic laws (3). Accordingly national authorities would be
in violation of their obligations were they to adopt legal acts setting aside application of the EC Treaty or
of Community law adopted under it. Nothing a Member State does can affect the uniform validity of
Community law throughout the Community.

The provisions of the EC Treaty can be modified only by a fresh Treaty ratified by all Member States.

Article 59 of the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe makes provision for voluntary
withdrawal from the Union but not for withdrawal from a specific Union policy.

It will be clear from what has been said that, as Community law stands at present and would stand under
the Draft Constitution, a Member State cannot depart from its obligation to apply the common rules
adopted within the compass of the common fisheries policy.

(1) See the Court’s judgments of 14 July 1976 (Cases 3, 4 and 6/76, ECR 1976 p.1279), 16 February 1978 (Case 61/77,
ECR1978 p. 417), 25 July 1991 (Case C-258/89, ECR 1991, p. 3977), 24 November 1992 (Case C-286/90,
ECR 1992 p. I-6019) and 24 November 1993 (Case C-405/92, ECR 1993, p. I-6133).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of

fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(3) The Court of Justice established the principle of the primacy of Community law over national law in its judgment of

25 July 1964 in Case 6/64, ECR 1964, p. 614 of the English edition.

(2004/C 70 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2976/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Export refunds for ovalbumin (cid:1) my question P-2696/03

My question P-2696/03 (1) raised two issues concerning export refunds for ovalbumin. In its answer, the
Commission addressed the first of these but not the second more important aspect.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/183

In addition to the assessment of the effects on the ovalbumin sector of the measures decided, provided in
the answer, I should appreciate a reply to the following questions:

(cid:1) Is the Commission prepared to change the tariff classification of ovalbumin by reclassifying it under
agricultural products, thus placing it on the same footing as other egg products such as eggs in shell,
egg yolk and whole egg (CN Code 0408)?

(cid:1) If so, what timescale does it have in mind? If not, why not?

(1) See page 129.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The Commission considers that a change in the tariff classification of ovalbumin from CN Code 3502 to
CN Code 0408 by the Community alone would not be possible, as the present classification is based on
the Harmonized System Convention.

Moreover, the possibility to take up ovalbumin as a product covered by the common organisation of
market in the eggs sector could possibly be envisaged, but the Community could not grant any refunds
under its World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitment on eggs, because the position 35 02 ovalbumin is
not in the Annex to the EC-WTO export subsidies commitments under this product group.

(2004/C 70 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2978/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds in Brittany

Following the French Government’s recent budgetary decisions, Brittany will be hard hit by the withdrawal
of government funding, which is jeopardising the payment of EU appropriations. It would appear that part
of the Structural Funds allocated to Brittany for the period 2000-2006 will be blocked owing to the fact
that the French Government is no longer willing to disburse the amounts it had previously undertaken to
pay under the State-Region planning contract. This situation is giving particular cause for concern in the
Lorient area, which is already facing a serious economic crisis as a result of the Navy’s withdrawal and the
conversion of the arsenal, and in the Brest, Trégor and west central Brittany areas.

Given that the Commission has always taken pains to ensure strict observance of the additionality
principle, would it not agree that the decision to withdraw funding half-way through the period is in
breach of this principle, and that the government’s attitude is placing a region which is in need of strong
support from Europe in a position of extreme economic and financial uncertainty?

Does the Commission intend to ask the French Government for an explanation? If it has already done so,
what form did this action take?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The financing plan in the single programming document for structural assistance in the Brittany region for
the period 2000-2006 provides for a contribution (national, regional or local) from the Member State of
EUR 583 902 092 towards the total eligible cost of EUR 1 400 926 184 (including private funding).
On 1 September 2003 the level of programming was 65 % of the total amount of the national public
matching funds laid down in the SPD.