WRITTEN QUESTION P-0850/04 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, Spain, agricultural quota, agro-industry, marketing year, quality control of agricultural products, regulation of agricultural production

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/237

a significant impact on the proposed site of Community interest ‘Sile: sorgenti, paludi di Morgano
e S. Cristina’ and, if that is the case, follow the procedure defined in the Directive before approval of the
project.

The Honourable Member does not provide concrete information that shows an effective degradation of the
Natura 2000 site and, therefore, the Commission is not in a position to identify a possible violation of
Community legislation.
the Honourable Member can provide detailed information enabling the
Commission to assess this issue in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission will then
be able to investigate this matter.

If

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 88 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0850/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004 lays down a financial correction of
EUR 8,7 million for Spain on account of the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas
and of shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products.

What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing
years did such shortcomings occur?

As regards the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas, what irregularities have given
rise to the correction? In what marketing years did they occur? What volume of supplementary quotas was
granted improperly in each marketing year? To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted
improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? How many firms were eligible
for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

(1) OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

In answer to the questions raised, the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat have been sent a
summary report extract explaining the grounds for the financial correction contained in Decision 2004/
136/EC (1) with respect to the processed tomato sector in Spain.

Please also note the following points:

(cid:1) the marketing years covered by the correction are: 1997/98 (very small amount concerning only the

correction for quality control of finished products), 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01;

(cid:1) the volumes of the additional quotas granted are: 35 027 tonnes (1998/99), 14 341 tonnes (1999/

2000), 21 224 tonnes (2000/2001).

C 88 E/238

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In theory, all firms which purchased, at the minimum price, a quantity of raw materials exceeding the
quota allocated at the beginning of the marketing year benefited from the additional quotas;

In theory, all firms which had said that they were willing to conclude contracts for additional quantities
would have been eligible for the additional quotas.

(1) Decision 2004/136/EC: Commission Decision of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

(2004/C 88 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Linguistic diversity

With reference to my question E-2825/03 (1) of 23 September 2003 and the answer of 23 October 2003
given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission, I should like to put the following supplementary
question.

The Copenhagen criteria cite the protection of minority languages as one aspect of a good minority policy.
Will this no longer apply after accession? How do the European Union and the European Commission
intend to monitor this in practice?

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 225.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

From 1 May 2004 the Acceding Countries will become full Member States of the European Union.
The framework that applies will therefore no longer be the Copenhagen Accession Criteria, but rather, the
Union’s standard working arrangements.

In this context, and as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Union is founded
on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are
common to the Member States. If there is a serious or persistent breach of the principles, the Commission
or one third of the Member States may refer the matter to the Council, meeting in the composition of the
Heads of State or Government.

Those rights have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Article 21(1) refers to the prohibition of discrimination based, among other things, on ethnic origin,
language, religion or membership of a national minority, and Article 22 requires that the Union respect
cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

(2004/C 88 E/0241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Large families

In its most recent report with a view to the Spring European Council, ‘Delivering Lisbon (cid:1) Reforms for
the Enlarged Union’ (1), the Commission pointed out (in point 2.4.1 on reinforcing social cohesion) that
the phenomenon of poverty ‘is very closely linked to unemployment as it affects 38 % of the unemployed.
Large families, elderly women living alone, and single-parent (71 % of whom are women) families’.