Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

10. 2.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/101

(98/C 45/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/97

by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE) to the Commission
(27 May 1997)

Subject: Report on the application of Regulations (EEC) 2078/92 and 2080/92

Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 (1) on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements
of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and Article 8 of Regulation (EEC)
2080/92 (2) instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture stipulate that the
Commission should submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of the
regulations in question three years after the date of their implementation in the Member States.

Can the Commission explain why it has not yet submitted a report in compliance with this requirement?

Does the Commission intend to act on this matter?

If so, when?

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 234.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1997)

The Commission has to present implementation reports after three years of application of the programmes.

Most of the programmes under Regulations 2078/92 and 2080/92 were adopted during the years 1994-1995, and
some only in 1996.

Consequently the Commission is in the process of preparing the reports on the implementation of these two
regulations for the initial years, and plans to present them to the Parliament and the Council during this year.

(98/C 45/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/97

by Manuel Porto (PPE) to the Commission
(27 May 1997)

Subject: Unilateral deviation from the Uruguay Round Agreement

International trade must be based on clearly established rules which are complied with. This is the only way that
economic operators can safely plan their activities.

In particular, the countries of the European Union made a great effort, during the Uruguay Round, to be open to
textile and clothing imports, despite being aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs were at stake. It therefore
agreed on a gradual process which would allow for the planning of the necessary restructuring and conversion.

How is it now conceivable to go back on what was agreed? In particular, how is it conceivable to decide
unilaterally whether to comply with an agreement, to the detriment of poorer countries and regions, for the
purpose of gaining certain advantages for the exports of richer countries and regions?
C 45/102 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 2. 98

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1997)

The Commission has had difficulties in determining the specific instances of alleged non-compliance with the
Uruguay Round agreement to which the Honourable Member refers. If, however, the question concerns Council
Regulation (EC) Nr. 824/97 of 29 April 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) Nr. 3030/93 on common rules for
imports of certain textile products from third countries (1), and the reasons that have led the Commission to
propose that regulation, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply it has given to
written question nr. 218/97 by Mr. Novo (2).

(1) OJ L 119/97 of 8.5.1997.

(2) OJ C 217 of 17.7.1997.

(98/C 45/126) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1783/97

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: Lower Community premiums for goats and sheep in Greece

There has been a substantial cutback this year in the level of Community premiums to producers of goat and
sheepmeat in Greece for each eligible ewe (a reduction of over Drs 2000 for low-weight animals).

If, in accordance with the information given to producers, this reduction is due to an increase in the slaughter
price for goat and sheepmeat at European level, can the Commission say on what data it based its conclusion that
there had been a corresponding rise in the price of goat and sheepmeat in Greece of a nature to justify a
substantial reduction in premiums? How was that data collected and from what sources?

Finally, in view of the great difficulties such a sudden decision creates for producers, will the Commission say
whether there is a possibility of an exemption for areas where there has obviously been no rise in the slaughter
price for goat and sheepmeat or, at all events, for areas which have problems in general, e.g. the islands, where
distribution and general production costs are considerably higher?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1997)

It is true that the amount of the Community premium received by producers of sheepmeat and goatmeat fell in the
marketing year 1996 by 32% compared with the previous marketing year. However, contrary to the Honourable
Member’s information, this fall was not the result of any increase in the slaughter costs of sheep and goats at
European level. It was in fact due to a sharp rise in the Community market price in 1996 over the previous
marketing year, which automatically reduced the premium, in accordance with current Community legislation.

In this context, it appears therefore that the questions raised about slaughter costs in certain parts of the
Community, and in particular Greece, have no link with the reduction in the premium. In any case, the
Commission has no official information on the slaughter costs of sheep and goats in the Community.