WRITTEN QUESTION P-4022/03 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Comparative data in the olive oil sector.
Date: 2003-12-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU Member State, EU control, agricultural expenditure, aid system, closing of accounts, olive oil

C 78 E/894

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) In its recent judgement of 11 December 2003 on Case C-322/01, the European Court of Justice ruled
that a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is
restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned, may be considered as a restriction to the free
movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty). That measure may, nevertheless, be justified by one
of the grounds foreseen in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in particular the protection of the health and
life of humans provided that the measure in question is necessary for the effective protection of health
and life of humans and that there are no other measures available which are less restrictive of intra-
Community trade.

(cid:1) According to the Court prescription medicines must, for these purposes, be distinguished from non-
prescription medicines. Thus, a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products,
the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned may be justified in so far
as the prohibition covers medicinal products subject to prescription. However, an absolute prohibition
on the sale by mail order of medicinal products which are not subject to prescription in the Member
State concerned cannot be justified on the basis of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

(1) Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect
of distance contracts (cid:1) Statement by the Council and the Parliament re Article 6(1) (cid:1) Statement by the
Commission re Article 3(1), first indent, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0945)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4022/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Comparative data in the olive oil sector

Will the Commission say whether it has comparative data on the results of controls carried out by its
services over the last five years in olive oil producing countries as part of annual economic adjustments in
the olive oil sector? If so what is this data? Have any penalties been imposed on the basis of the results of
these controls in each olive oil producing Member State and if so, which ones?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The expenditure related to the common market organisation of olive oil is part of the expenditure under
the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund-Guarantee section (EAGGF). The Commission
carries out its controls of this expenditure in the framework of the clearance of accounts (1).

On the basis of the clearance of accounts procedure, the Commission adopts separate decisions (cid:1) ‘ad-hoc
decisions’ (cid:1) that aim to exclude expenditure for which a Member State fails to provide the Commission
with reasonable assurance as to the effectiveness of the management and control procedures used to check
the legality and regularity of the aid scheme.

In the case of the olive oil production aid such financial corrections have been applied in recent years to
several Member States. Corrections have been applied as a flat-rate percentage of the total expenditure
related to the aid scheme per financial year.

For the financial year 1998 and 1999 Greece and Spain have seen their expenditure corrected by 5 % (2)
and Italy by 2 % (3). No corrections were applied to Portugal and France.

For the financial year 2000 Greece has again seen its expenditure corrected by 5 % and Italy by 2 % (4).
In the case of Spain the clearance of accounts procedure has not yet been finalised for this financial year.
No corrections were applied to France and Portugal.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/895

The financial impact of these corrections can be summarized as follows:

Greece

Spain

Italy

1998

50,8

48,5

9,1

1999

21,0

45,5

12,5

(per million euros)

2000

24,1

N/A

13,0

For financial years 2001 to 2003 the clearance of accounts procedure is still ongoing concerning the
relevant Member States, and appropriate financial corrections will be applied in due course.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy,

OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) Commission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 200, 25.7.2001 and Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 excluding from
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (Greece), OJ L 184, 23.7.2003, and Commission
Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February 2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF), OJ L 50, 21.2.2001 and Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 excluding from
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 306, 8.11.2002 (Spain).

(3) Commission Decision 2002/523/EC of 28 June 2002 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 170, 29.6.2002.

(4) Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 (Greece and Italy).

(2004/C 78 E/0946)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4023/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Natura 2000

In its judgment of 19 January 1994 (Case C-435/92), the Court of Justice considered that ‘any hunting
activity is liable to disturb wildlife and that it may in many cases affect the state of conservation of the
species concerned, independently of the extent to which it depletes numbers … Those disturbances are
reported to have an adverse impact on the level of energy of each individual and the mortality rate of all
the populations concerned.’.

In its reasoned opinion issued to France on 13 September 1994, the Commission took the view that
Article 7 does not allow hunting within special protection areas, that hunting is bound to affect the living
conditions of birds, even if there is a guarantee that they will not be killed, and that beating, shooting and
the presence of hunters and their dogs are incompatible with the objectives of reproduction and survival
specified in Article 4.

The Commission went on to point out that the aim of the financial support granted to France for
developing special protection areas had been to establish hunting-free nature reserves quickly.

Lastly, it stated that, in its view, that hunting within such areas could not under any circumstances be
justified by citing imperative reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 6(4) of
Directive 92/43/EEC (1).

However, both the Commission and the Member States maintain that hunting will continue in the Natura
2000 network, in which no disturbances to wildlife will be permitted.