WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/17 4. Is it always the relevant producer himself who has to pay the superlevy if the quota is exceeded? Does the Commission have any information to suggest that Italy has paid LIT 3 631 billion in 5. superlevy from its State budget? 6. If any measures (infringement proceedings) have been taken, what stage have they reached? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 October 1999) Community legislation on milk quotas applies to all the Member States. In a number of respects this 1. legislation permits choices regarding the specific implementing rules so that the Member States can take account of their specific conditions of production. 2. 3. Yes. Yes, but not on a scale which compromises the operation of the arrangement. Yes, but in the case of deliveries collection is the responsibility of the dairy to which the producer 4. delivers. 5. The Commission has collected from Italy the amounts due as a result of the quotas being exceeded. Following the work of ácommissione di garanzia quote latteí (milk quota guarantee commission) which examined the reference quantities of all the producers individually and reported in February 1999, in July the Italian administration undertook to recover those amounts from the debtors. The Commission is awaiting details of this recovery. However, the settlement of any individual disputes is a matter for the Italian courts. 6. An infringement procedure concerning the failure by Italy to make a definitive recovery of the supplementary levy from producers who exceeded their quotas is still in progress. However, in view of the developments referred to in the previous paragraph since a reasoned opinion was issued, the Commission does not consider it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice at this stage. Naturally, it reserves the right to do so if no satisfactory conclusion is reached soon. (2000/C 203 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef The French trade union Coordination paysanne europØenne has organised a number of peaceful demon- strations outside the French branches of the US firm Macdonaldís to protest against the US Administra- tionís measures, which heavily tax a number of European products because the Union, quite rightly, refuses to import American beef produced in a way which does not comply with public health requirements in European Union countries. Does the Commission not consider that 1. the symbolic acts by the French trade union ü the distribution of products hit by the US measures, such as Roquefort and foie gras, outside the symbol of the antithesis of European culinary culture ü Macdonaldís ü are worthy of support? 2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to oppose the orders of the WTO ü an organisation under US control ü concerning imports of foodstuffs, in this specific case beef treated with substances harmful to human health? C 203 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1999) According to Community law as stated for example in Articles 95(3), 152(1) and 153(1) EC Treaty, the Community has to ensure for consumers a high level of food quality and safety. Therefore, following the findings and recommendations of the World trade organisation (WTO) dispute settlement body, the Commission asked its scientific committee on veterinary matters relating to public health (SCVPH) to deliver an opinion on the potential for adverse effects to human health from the administration of the six hormones for animal growth promotion. At the end of April 1999 the SCVPH delivered its opinion on the assessment of potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products. Based on this scientific advice the Commission decided that it could not propose to the Member States to lift the ban. The United States and Canada initiated WTO procedures to suspend concessions because the period of time to conform with the WTO findings expired on 13 May 1999. The Community asked for WTO arbitration on the amount, as a result of which the United States were authorised to suspend concessions for US$ 116 million, instead of the US$ 202 million they had requested. The Canadian authorisation was limited to CAN$ 11 million instead of the CAN$ 75 million requested by Canada. The Commission regrets that the United States and Canada have chosen to impose 100 % duties on a number of European products, which not only affects the export business of several companies, but also deprives American consumers of high quality goods produced in Europe. Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to study the recent scientific data, in order to evaluate on this basis, and in the light of any new relevant information, the steps which are necessary to be taken in the light of the Communityís WTO rights and obligations. (2000/C 203 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/99 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: EC-Greenland Agreement the fact that, under the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark In view of (representing the Greenland Local Government), which serves as a fisheries agreement, there are fishing possibilities which are not used by the Member States, is the Commission intending to retain the agreement as a fisheries agreement, or is a cooperation agreement with Greenland finally being drawn up? (2000/C 203 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/99 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: EC-Greenland Fisheries Protocol The Third Fisheries Protocol between the European Community and Denmark and the Greenland Local Government, which has been in force since 1985, contains two separate components, the first concerned with an exchange of quotas between the Parties and the acquisition of additional quotas and the second intended to support the establishment of joint ventures and temporary business associations within Greenlandís fisheries sector. Can the Commission say what kind of fisheries agreement it intends to negotiate with Greenland, bearing in mind that both the current Fisheries Agreement and the Third Protocol will expire on 31 December 2000?