WRITTEN QUESTION P-1181/04 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas.
Date: 2004-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, agricultural quota, agro-industry, marketing year, quality control of agricultural products, regulation of agricultural production

C 88 E/284

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1181/04

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

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

In my Written Question P-0850/04 (1) I put various questions to the Commission which have not received
an adequate answer. The Commission has confined itself to clarifying that the shortcomings in checks on
the quality of end products concerned the marketing year 1997/98 and that the irregular grant of
supplementary quotas concerned the marketing years 1998/99 to 2000/01. The Commission has provided
information on the volume of the supplementary quotas granted, but not on the volume of those granted
improperly, even though it is the latter which must have given rise to the financial correction. The
Commission further states that in principle, all the undertakings which acquired a higher number of raw
materials at the minimum price than the quota allocated at the start of the marketing year benefited from
the supplementary quotas and that,
in principle, all the undertakings which indicated that they were
prepared to conclude contracts for the supplementary amounts were eligible for the supplementary quotas.
All this does not explain the nature of the irregularities which gave rise to the financial correction, nor
their impact in terms of possible distortions of competition.

Given that the questions raised in Written Question P-0850/04 have not been answered, I am now
resubmitting them:

1. What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what

marketing years did such shortcomings occur?

2. What irregularities have given rise to the correction?

3.

In what marketing years did they occur?

4. What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year?

5. To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to

which the correction relates?

6. How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which

the correction relates?

(1) See page 237.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We refer to the Summary Report annexed to our first reply (1). This sets out our findings in detail and the
grounds of the financial correction.

In reply to the Honourable Member’s questions:

1. The shortcomings in quality control

lay in the fact that the Spanish authorities’ administrative
practices were such that processors could probably tell at the beginning of the year whether or not
they might be checked. See points B.2.2.1.2 and B.2.2.3.2. of the Summary Report annexed to our
first reply and the first point of the reply itself (the marketing years in question were those up to
2000-2001).

2. On assignment of supplementary quotas, the basic fact is not the irregularities themselves but that the
quota management system set up by the Spanish authorities did not comply with the Community
legislation (cid:1) see Summary Report points B.2.2.1.1., B.2.2.3.1. and B.2.2.5.(second paragraph).

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/285

3. These failings in the quota management system were found by us to relate to the 1998-1999 to

2000-2001 marketing years. See the first point of our first reply.

4. The actual supplementary quotas improperly granted amounted to 35 027 tonnes (1998-1999),

14 341 tonnes (1999-2000), and 21 224 tonnes (2000-2001).

5. Our investigation covered the inspection system in general but not the enterprises individually.
The financial correction we decided on was accordingly imposed on the totality of the quotas granted
improperly, i.e. in a way that did not conform with the Community rules, no reference being made to
individual enterprises. The third point of our first reply gives additional information.

6.

Point 5 replies to this question. The fourth point of our first reply gives additional information.

(1) See reply No AGR08472 of 24.3.2004.

(2004/C 88 E/0292)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1199/04

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: VAT levy on EU aid

Recipients of aid from the ESF have asked me to inform the Commission that, under the split taxation
assessment procedure, recipients in the Federal Republic of Germany are required to pay VAT and,
in addition, must provisionally provide finance for projects as the EU does not make funding available
concurrently.

The Commission:

1. Does it share the view that the allocation of aid in general and, in the case of the ESF in particular,
should not be organised under Member States’ rules in such a way that the recipients are required to
pay VAT, thereby making European funding subject to taxation in the Member State?

2. What steps does it intend to take to put an end to such a procedure?

3. On what legal basis can the recipients concerned lodge a complaint or initiate proceedings in response

to such a procedure?

4. What action will it take so that, in future, the eventual recipients of EU aid do not have to provide

provisional funding themselves over a period of months?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

According to the Honourable Member,
the recipients of aid from the European Social Fund have
complained that in Germany they are required to pay VAT under the split taxation assessment procedure
(gesplittete Zuwendungsbescheide). He asks whether the Commission shares the view that the allocation of
aid, especially in the case of the European Social Fund, may be organised in such a way that the recipients
are required to pay VAT, thereby making European funding subject to taxation in the Member State
concerned.

It is not clear from the question exactly what cases are concerned and without more detailed information
the Commission is unable to provide specific answers to the questions put. Note, however, that under
Article 11, A, (1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (amended) (1), within the territory of the country, the
taxable amount
in respect of supplies of goods and services is everything which constitutes the
consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser, the customer or a
third party for such supplies, including subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies. The taxation
of aid, including Community aid, is therefore not in principle excluded, but it can be, if the funding does