WRITTEN QUESTION P-0520/04 by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission. Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing industry, fishing regulations, proposal (EU), social dialogue (EU)

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/611

Nevertheless, Portugal requested at a later stage that such pensioners residing in Portugal could no longer
ask to be exempt from the Swiss sickness insurance and be insured in Portugal instead. This required that
Annex II of the Agreement be amended by decision of a Joint Committee. As the request meant that
Portugal would apply the same rules as most other Member States in relation to Switzerland, which
moreover are the same rules as apply amongst Member States, the Joint Committee, consisting of the
representatives from the contracting parties in Switzerland, the Member States and the Community agreed
to the Portuguese request. Annex II of the Agreement was therefore amended accordingly (3).

Therefore, from 1 June 2003 pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Portugal must be insured against
sickness in Switzerland; only pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Germany, France, Italy and
Austria may ask not to be insured against sickness in Switzerland.

(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002.
(2) Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72, 1st consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for
implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(3) 2003/554/EC: Decision No 2/2003 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee of 15 July 2003 amending Annex II (Social
Security) to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss
Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons.

(2004/C 84 E/0686)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0520/04

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean

Knowing that:

(cid:1) European fisheries associations are united in opposition to the proposal for new technical measures

for fisheries in the Mediterranean (1).

(cid:1) The proposal would lead to the creation of an unbridgeable gap between Member States and third

countries and would permanently hinder the harmonious development of the Mediterranean.

(cid:1) It also ignores the social and economic impact of legislation and the inconsistency of the socio-

economic measures contained in structural policy.

Does the Commission intend to withdraw the proposal at the appropriate time and to rewrite the text
following genuine, sincere and in-depth consultations with representatives of the industry?

(1) COM(2003) 746 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no intention of withdrawing this proposal.

The Commission is not aware that fishermen’s associations were opposed to the temporary technical
measures in the Mediterranean in the document referred to in the written question. These measures have
been adopted by the Council as part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003
fixing, for 2004, the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of
fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations
are required (1).

C 84 E/612

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

the Honourable Member intended to refer to the Proposal

for a Council Regulation concerning
If
management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea (2), the
Commission considers that the opposition shown by fishermen’s associations, particularly in the recent
public hearing before the Fishery Committee of the Parliament,
is comparable to reactions from the
fisheries sector to other Commission proposals. Strong opposition from the fishing industry to measures
intended to reduce fishing effort or its impact on sustainability is not unusual.

However, the Honourable Member should be aware that there are several divergent positions within the
fishing industry on specific points of the Commission proposal. What is acceptable for certain fisheries or
fishermen provokes opposition from others.

The Commission proposal is not intended to undermine the interests of Community fishermen but, on the
contrary, to address the problems they are facing in terms of a reduction of catch possibilities in a number
of important Mediterranean fisheries and to deliver sustainable fisheries in the region.

In the Commission’s view, it is for the Community, as the largest fishing power in the Mediterranean
region, to give a clear signal of its commitment to sustainable fishing, while at the same time taking action
to persuade third countries to cooperate towards the same end within the multilateral framework of the
General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean. This regional fisheries organisation is going to be further
strengthened thanks to the initiatives of the Community, including the recent Ministerial Conference in
Venice.

Socio-economic measures to counteract possible negative effects on the sector of fisheries management
measures may already be taken by Member States. In the Commission’s view, the proposed transitional
period of six years for the entry into force of the mesh size increases foreseen in the proposed Regulation
will avoid drastic and sudden changes that would be difficult for the sector to cope with.

Consultation with the fishing industry on the improvement of fisheries policy in the Mediterranean Sea
started well before the issue of the Green Paper on the reform of the Common fisheries policy (CFP) (3) in
2001 and has continued since. Two meetings were held with the industry in 2003 before the latest
proposals were presented. The Commission intends to organize further meetings with the fishing industry
at national level.

(1) OJ L 344, 31.12.2003.
(2) COM(2003) 589 final.
(3) COM(2001) 135 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Prize draw mailing scams

Companies across Europe are sending people letters advising them that they have won money in prize
draws. Some citizens then send money, as they have been instructed to, but they do not receive the reward
promised in the literature.

Has the Commission considered this matter recently? Will it submit proposals to protect citizens from
such fraud?