WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/03 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortions in the sugar trade.
Date: 2003-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: commodity price, common organisation of markets, confectionery, reform of the CAP, restriction on competition, sugar, world market price

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/269

All applications submitted by farmers must undergo an administrative check. This enables cross-checks to
be made, firstly to identify parcels declared twice for the same aid and, secondly, to compare the parcels
declared in aid applications against the reference parcels contained in the agricultural parcel identification
system in order to verify their eligibility for aid.

In addition, at least 5 % of applications must be subject to an on-the-spot check in order to verify whether
the parcels are actually eligible and whether the set-aside rules have indeed been complied with.

During on-the-spot checks, parcel area is determined by any appropriate means stipulated by the authority
responsible in the Member State in compliance with the Regulations referred to above. Hence there is
some latitude as regards determining how and by whom the area of parcels is to be measured, subject to
retention of overall control and responsibility.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain

arable crops, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control

system for certain Community aid schemes, OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327, 12.12.2001.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending
Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001,
(EC) No 1251/1999,
OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(EC) No 1673/2000,

(EC) No 1254/1999,

(2004/C 84 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Distortions in the sugar trade

Could the Commission explain how it proposes to tackle distortions in the sugar trade which mean that
British confectioners employing a large number of people must pay 10 % more for sugar than competitors
operating within the single market, and up to three times the rate of their global competitors operating
outside it? Does this state of affairs not make a mockery of the EU’s purported desire to create stability in
employment and a genuine single market for trade purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The price variations that exist in the single market for every product reflect variation in the play of supply
and demand from one place to another. The common organisation for the sugar market keeps prices in
the Community at a considerably higher level than on the world market but also incorporates certain
measures designed to soften the impact of these high prices on enterprises using sugar in the Community.
Thus import duties are levied on food products with a high sugar content, export refunds are granted on
sugar used in food products and production refunds are granted to the chemical and pharmaceutical
industries on the sugar they use.

Aware nonetheless that there are constraints both internal and external on the organisation that necessitate
a reform,
in September 2003 we sent the Council and Parliament a Communication entitled Accom-
plishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP (cid:1) the tobacco, olive oil,
cotton and sugar sectors (1). This presents three types of option for the future of the Union’s sugar

C 84 E/270

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

organisation. All three entail a reduction in prices. We are confident that the discussions in progress with
the Member States and Parliament will lead to a solution ensuring sustainable development for the sugar
sector to the satisfaction of both users and consumers.

(1) COM(2003) 554 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam

According to recent press reports (see the Portuguese newspaper ‘Expresso’, 6 December 2003), the city
council of Rotterdam (Netherlands) has decided that in future housing licences in the city will be issued
only to persons who earn at least 120 % of the minimum wage and, if they are immigrants, have taken an
‘integration course’ and passed the relevant examination.

These proposals are unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the European Union, notably those of
solidarity, non-discrimination, action for social inclusion and the free movement of persons.

Is the Commission aware of this decision by the Rotterdam city council, aimed at securing the

1.
expulsion of the less-favoured from the city?

2. What measures will the Commission take to stop this decision being implemented, given that it
amounts to an attack on human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common EU asylum and immigration
policy. This policy includes the fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of
Member States. The European Council conclusions state that the legal status of legally resident third
country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States’ nationals. Third country nationals
should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens.

This is concretised by Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of
third country nationals who are long-term residents. Article 11(f) of the Directive provides that third
country nationals entitled to long-term resident status should enjoy equality of treatment with nationals as
far as access to goods and services are concerned. This includes in particular access to procedures for
obtaining housing. The Member States must transpose this Directive by 23 January 2006 at the latest.

For other migrants, who are not long-term residents, there is no legal provision at EU level for the
moment which guarantees the equal treatment in terms of access to housing.

For migrant workers who are nationals of Member States,
it should be underlined that, according to
Article 9 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC, they shall enjoy all the rights and benefits accorded to national
workers in matters of housing including ownership of the housing they need.

In the case of the measures taken in Rotterdam, the situation described seems, however, to demonstrate
that no discrimination is being made between nationals and third country nationals as far as the
attribution of housing permits is concerned, because the level of 120 % of minimum wages is applied to
both.

As far as the general conditions for granting housing permits are concerned, this falls clearly within the
exclusive competence of the Member States. The Commission is, therefore, not competent to assess such
measures.