WRITTEN QUESTION P-3166/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. The Commission's compliance with the decisions of the European Court of Justice.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, European Commission, application of EU law, judgment of the Court (EU), re-export, sugar, supply

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/229

At present, the Commission has no plans to pursue legislation to make warning labels on alcohol products
compulsory. It should be noted that the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying
down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (2) constitutes the
existing Community legislation on labelling of spirit drinks.

The Commission has paid special attention to protecting young people, because in several Member States
problems due to the drinking of alcohol by children and adolescents have risen in recent years. Referring
to this, the above mentioned Council Recommendation on the drinking of alcohol by young people
proposes that Member States should encourage,
in co-operation with the producers and retailers of
alcoholic beverages, the establishment of effective mechanisms to ensure that alcoholic beverages are not
promoted to appeal to children and adolescents, paying particular attention to avoiding the implication
that sporting success is linked to alcohol use.

The Commission’s emphasis is on effective self-regulation. In recent meetings with representatives of the
alcohol industry the Commission has, however, stressed the need for industry to comply with the Council
Recommendation and with the existing codes of conduct. Further efforts by industry are needed to
improve the functioning and the effectiveness of such codes.

(1) OJ L 161, 16.6.2001.
(2) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.

(2004/C 70 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3166/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: The Commission’s compliance with the decisions of the European Court of Justice

In its welcome answer to question E-1804/03 (1) the Commission states that it is not engaged in any
proceedings against Sinaga, which means that the case opposing the possibility of shipping sugar from the
Azores (Case C 2002-1098) has therefore ceased to exist and that the Commission is thus respecting the
judgement of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 of the European Court of Justice.

The fact that the Commission is complying with the Court’s decision removes the reasons which led the
Commission not to implement the Poseima regulations fully, and hence there is also nothing to prevent
the 3 000-tonne increase in the supply of white sugar, produced from unrefined sugar, requested by
Sinaga.

Can the Commission therefore confirm that it has acted on the request mentioned in the question’s title?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 173.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

As guardian of
scrupulously respects the Court of Justice’s decisions.

the Treaties the Commission watches over compliance with Community law and

In its judgment in Case C-282/00 the Court upheld the principle maintained by the Commission of
freedom to ship or export sugar obtained from beet harvested in the Azores.

In the same judgment it confirmed the Commission’s position on shipment to the European mainland or
exportation of refined sugar produced in the Azores from raw sugar supplied to the islands under the
specific supply arrangements (SSA)
introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92, now replaced by
Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 (1).

C 70 E/230

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Supply of the outermost islands under these arrangements is restricted to what is required for human
consumption, as agricultural inputs and for processing. Sugar sent to the Azores with benefit of the SSA
(exemption from customs duty or in the case of Community sugar payment of an aid equal to the refund)
cannot leave the islands.

There is one exception to this principle. If processing of supplied products has occurred in the Azores the
resulting products can be shipped or exported within the limits of ‘traditional quantities’. The Court ruled
on this point in the following words (2). ‘It follows that the shipments of sugar must satisfy relatively strict
conditions in order to be classified as traditional trade flows or traditional shipments. Those requirements
refer as much to the magnitude of the shipments as to their frequency and the fact that they are ongoing.’
‘In order to determine whether shipments of sugar to mainland Portugal and to Madeira … are traditional
exports it must,
the Poseima Programme was
implemented by Regulation No 1600/92, with effect from 1 July 1992, those shipments were ongoing,
regular and significant. Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those
requirements.’

therefore, be determined whether, at

the time that

The Portuguese authorities have not provided evidence of shipments of sugar of the type specified by the
Court. Therefore since the exception to the principle is not valid in this case the islands’ sugar supply
needs must be worked out on the basis of local consumption.

There is nothing to suggest that sugar consumption in the Azores has risen by 3 000 tonnes a year.
Accordingly Sinaga’s request to the Commission for an increase in the supply balance must be turned
down.

(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.

(2) Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judgment.

(2004/C 70 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3175/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Funding of prevention programmes and disease surveillance

In its proposal COM(2003) 441 (establishing a European Centre [for Disease Prevention and Control],
which is to be concerned with the surveillance of infectious diseases), the Commission has launched an
important health initiative. Under the proposal, the Centre is to administer the Community’s network of
competent national authorities or institutes, (cf. Decision 2119/98/EC (1)) and the dedicated surveillance
networks (DSNs) for specific diseases including AIDS, tuberculosis, influenza, etc.

Can the Commission confirm that it has simultaneously decided not to continue its support for the DSNs
under the new prevention programme, with the result that several networks, including EUVAC.NET, have
been closed down (cid:1) directly contradicting the underlying aims of COM(2003) 441?

In the same connection, can the Commission state whether any other decisions have been taken which
directly or indirectly conflict with the EU’s surveillance effort, and can it give details of how it proposes to
finance other related activities in the health field, particularly with a view to surveillance and the
establishment of networks?

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 1.