WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Cockle and mussel fishermen.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, FIFG, Northern Ireland, fishing industry, modernisation aid, mollusc

C 88 E/278

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

On the same date, Commissioner Fischler wrote me a letter in which he acknowledged that regulations
685 and 2027 of 1995 are, at the present time, still applicable; these regulations make fishing in the
Portuguese economic exclusion zone of the Azores the exclusive preserve of vessels with licences issued by
the Portuguese national authorities.

To my utter consternation, Commissioner Fischler last night stated on Portuguese television that Spanish
vessels could fish in the Portuguese economic exclusion zone of the Azores since they are licensed to do so.

Does the Commission possess information indicating that the Portuguese authorities have issued any
fishing licence with effect from 1 January 2004 to Spanish vessels in the Portuguese economic exclusion
zone of the Azores?

If not, can the Commission explain how it reconciles the Commissioner’s two statements?

(1) OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the Portuguese authorities have not issued any fishing
licences with effect from 1 January 2004 to Spanish vessels allowing them to operate in Portugal’s
Azorean economic exclusion zone.

We reaffirm our position on application of the 1995 arrangements and of those introduced by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 (1). It is as follows:

(cid:1) Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 contains provisions for limiting fishing effort in Azorean
and other waters. These differ from the arrangements of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of
15 June 1995 (2). Article 5 came into force on 14 November 2003;

(cid:1) some uncertainty has been expressed about

that date given that Article 15 of
Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 does not repeal the previous Regulations until the date of entry into
force of the implementing Regulation, or 1 August 2004 at the latest;

the validity of

(cid:1) but that provision does not affect the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003,
including its Article 5. It often happens in law that the same matter is regulated by two or more sets
of provisions. If these conflict the most recent rule applies. In this case Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
No 1954/2003 gives less extensive exclusivity to Spanish and Portuguese vessels than the previous
arrangements, which have not yet been formally repealed, and as the most recent rule takes
precedence.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to
certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing
Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ L 289, 7.11.2003.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort

relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, OJ L 199, 24.8.1995.

(2004/C 88 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Cockle and mussel fishermen

(6 April 2004)

Could the Commission confirm if cockle and mussel fishermen in Northern Ireland receive EU subsidies? If
so, please could the Commission give details on the amount of these subsidies and how they were
obtained?

Would cockle and mussel fishermen in Boston in the East Midlands region also be eligible for such
subsidies?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/279

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that no funding has been made available to cockle and mussel fishermen in
Northern-Ireland. They could, however, indirectly benefit from aid for port facilities and apply for vessel
modernisation to improve quality. Shellfish processors may also benefit from aid for the processing,
marketing and promotion of shellfish products. Through the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG) funded aquaculture schemes, eligible shellfish cultivation projects have received funding in the past.

facilities,

For Boston, the same range of grants is available under the FIFG to cockle and mussel fishermen i.e. aid for
port
for vessel modernisation to improve quality, and for the processing, marketing and
promotion of shellfish products. For assistance to be provided, however, the relevant managing authority
needs to include these measures in its programme.

(2004/C 88 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1078/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant

On 15 April the Flemish Brabant Info-Point Europe is to hold a debate in the provincial government
building in Leuven on the European elections. Although five parties represented in parliament are to take
part in Flanders in the forthcoming European elections, only representatives of three parties have been
invited to participate in this debate, namely Marianne Thyssen (CD & V), Saïd El Khadraoui (SP.A) and Dirk
Sterckx (VLD). A small party, the ‘Greens’, has not been invited. Likewise the Vlaams Blok, despite the fact
that it came in third in Flanders in the last European election. Contacted by telephone and asked about
this, the Info-Point Europe said that the debate concerns Flemish Brabant and Europe. However, one of the
participants does not live in the province concerned, unlike one of the two Vlaams Blok MEPs who does
live there. The Info-Point Europe and the province of Flemish Brabant have apparently decided on a
completely arbitrary basis that the Vlaams Blok is not to be invited. The Flemish Brabant ‘Info-Point
Europe’ evidently only wishes to provide part of the information about the European Parliament.

The leaflet containing an invitation to the debate includes not only the logos of the Info-Point Europe
(which receives financial support from the Commission) and of the province, but also the European flag.

Does the Commission consider it usual for a public service partly financed by it to arbitrarily exclude
political parties from public debate?

Are Info-Points Europe not required to show political neutrality?

What measures are intended to prevent such a deplorable state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission thanks the honourable member for his question.

The Commission would like to draw his attention to the fact that the debate ‘U stemt toch ook voor
Europa?’ was organised by the Leuven Info-Point Europe and not by the Commission.

Like the other information relays for the general public subsidised by the Commission, this Info-Point is
provided by a host structure, in this case the Province of Flemish Brabant (Provincie Vlaams-Brabant),
under an agreement with the Commission whereby the host structure and its Info-Point act in their own
name and assume full responsibility for the information they supply to the public and the measures taken
in order to do so.