WRITTEN QUESTION P-3810/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. EU rules on discarding healthy fish.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, catch quota, common fisheries policy, discarded fish, economic consequence, environmental impact, fishery management, fishing regulations, impact study

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/325

(2004/C 78 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3809/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-0983/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003,
that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been
the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3798/03, E-3799/03, E-3800/03,
E-3801/03, E-3802/03, E-3803/03, E-3804/03, E-3805/03,
E-3806/03, E-3807/03, E-3808/03 and E-3809/03
given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission, as the Honourable Member correctly states, answered a previous question on this subject
on 30 July 2003 (1).

The situation since July 2003 has been as follows: the call for proposals for projects taking place in 2004
under the Culture 2000 programme closed on 31 October 2003 (for annual projects) and 15 November
2003 (for multiannual projects).

Consequently, the projects submitted are still being examined and (cid:1) at this stage (cid:1) the Commission must
abide by the rules of confidentiality which prohibit it from giving any information on projects submitted
or the cultural operators that submitted them.

As already stated in its previous answer, all the information on the projects selected will be available on the
Internet once
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/
index_fr.html).

selection procedure has

finished,

the

at:

(1) Written question E-0830/03, joined to the Honourable Member’s Written Questions E-892/03 and E-0978/03 to

E-0990/03, OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2004/C 78 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3810/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU rules on discarding healthy fish

The EU’s quota arrangements for fishing by the Member States compel Danish fishermen each year to
throw back into the North Sea approximately 500 000 tonnes of top-quality dead fish to the tune of
EUR 25 million. This includes 45 000 tonnes of cod, which corresponds to approximately 14 million top-
quality Danish codfish.

Recent weeks alone have seen 40 tonnes of sole discarded in the Danish sector of the Kattegat. Because of
the existing rules the entire EU fishing fleet is discarding healthy fish in the North Sea to the tune of close
on EUR 1 billion. Apart from cod and sole this also includes large quantities of lobster, turbot and plaice.

C 78 E/326

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Firstly, this is an immoral waste of food, secondly, discarding dead fish in this way is environmental
pollution and, thirdly, it renders all of the EU’s attempts to limit the exploitation of fish stocks entirely
absurd. The fish perish and fish stocks and their reproduction are harmed.

Where there is a need to restrict the exploitation of fishery resources, this could be done by limiting the
number of fishermen’s sea days once they have landed the quantity of fish which it is deemed reasonable
to catch.

At the same time as resources are being destroyed in this absurd way, the EU allows fishermen from
Norway and the Baltic countries that are not yet members of the EU to land substantial quantities of fish in
Danish ports. It is said that the fisheries inspection checks on these non-EU fishing vessels are far laxer
than the checks on landings from Danish fishing vessels.

The EU’s amateurish attempts at controlling fishing are giving rise to widespread annoyance with the EU as
a whole and create the impression of bureaucratic interference that runs directly counter to the stated
objective.

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent the wastage of fish and the destruction of the
fishing industry as a result of the discarding of healthy fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s belief that the discard problem is a serious one in
to it. A very recent
fishery management and has devoted a number of
Communication (1) points up not only the magnitude of the problem but the complexity of the reasons
for discarding. Regulatory constraints as mentioned by the Honourable Member account for quantities that
while not negligible are only a fraction by comparison with the amount discarded for economic reasons. It
also makes clear that while there are various ways of securing reductions in discards there is no single
solution to the entire problem. We agree that greater restriction of fishing effort is an effective tool but
others can and must be considered.

reports and studies

We are concerned not to stop at findings, useful though they may be, but are firmly intent on obtaining a
significant reduction and have therefore undertaken to identify fisheries for which concrete provisions will
be brought into force.
In addition to the hoped-for benefits to these fisheries themselves, practical
experience will be gained of what the various tools available can do. The Fisheries Directorate-General is at
the moment engaged in widespread consultation in order to find definite practical projects.

We are also aware that the CFP rules can be seen as resulting in constraints on fishermen, but do not share
the Honourable Member’s opinion that these rules are both too timid and needlessly bureaucratic. On the
contrary we promote action that is as vigorous as possible, although our proposals are not always followed
by the other CFP players. But at the same time we are assiduous in simplifying the rules as much as
possible so that they are confined to what is strictly necessary and are preparing for further action to that
end to be launched under the forthcoming Dutch Presidency. But, and this is particularly so in the present
context of overexploitation of major resources and excess catch capacity, effective management requires
various restrictions, including restrictions on catches. The resulting quotas can lead to discards, particularly
if action is not taken to ensure that the quotas for the various species are used up in a well-managed way.
It is our earnest wish that, without waiting for conclusions from the pilot projects indicated above, the
national authorities in consultation with the fishermen bring in provisions that will secure a reduction in
discards, beginning with better management of quota depletion for the various species and better spatial
and chronological distribution of fishing effort.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/327

On landing checks in Danish ports on non-Community vessels, the fishery policing rules enable the Danish
authorities to take rigorous action against landing of catches that have been made in breach of the rules
recognised internationally, by Norway and the Baltic countries alike, and we have no indication that the
Danish authorities do not make good use of the powers on these matters that the CFP gives them.

(1) COM(2002) 656 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0344)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3835/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC

(8 December 2003)

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that all EU Member States, including
Greece, implement Directive 89/48/EEC (1), bearing in mind also the recent judgements of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities in cases C-153/02 and C-313/01?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

In the Néri judgment (C-153/02) of 13 November 2003, the Court of Justice ruled that ‘an administrative
practice under which degrees awarded by a university of one Member State cannot be recognised in
another Member State when the courses of preparation for those degrees were provided in the latter
Member State by another educational establishment in accordance with an agreement made between the
two establishments, is incompatible with Article 43 EC’.

The issue at stake here is that of so-called ‘franchise agreements’.

The Commission has started several infringement proceedings, one against Italy and two against Greece, in
which one of the objections raised is the fact that degrees awarded under franchise agreements are not
recognised.

Another infringement proceeding is also under way against Germany for its refusal to authorise the use of
university qualifications awarded under franchise agreements.

The Commission will examine how it can best make use of the Néri judgment in each of these procedures.

In the Morgenbesser judgment (C-313/01), also of 13 November 2003, the Court delivered its judgment
on the rules which apply to access to the activity of ‘praticante avvocato’ (trainee lawyer), i.e. to the period
of practical training which must be carried out before taking the aptitude test to practise as a lawyer in
Italy. For admission to this activity, Italian law requires prior academic recognition of legal qualifications
obtained in other Member States. The Court ruled that
this requirement was incompatible with
Community law when this period of practice comprised the pursuit of remunerated activities. The Court
stated that in this case the principles to be applied are those arising from its own case-law based on
Articles 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty. The national authorities are therefore obliged to compare the
applicant’s professional knowledge, as certified by his/her qualifications or acquired through professional
experience, either in the Member State of origin or in the host Member State, with the professional
knowledge certified by the qualifications required by national law. If the comparison reveals that these
correspond only partially, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to show that
he/she has acquired the knowledge which is lacking.

The Commission will ensure that Italy complies with the Court of Justice case-law. The Commission is, of
course, always prepared to examine any information on the existence of comparable situations in other
Member States.