WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Investment aid for flax processing.
C 225 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 is undoubtedly justified that the above convention is out of date and in need of fundamental review. A resolution (B5-0118/1999) was, moreover, recently adopted by the European Parliament calling in particular on the Commission to draw up a white paper on measures relating to civil aviation, which would include measures paving the way for taxes on kerosene fuel to be introduced. The Commission consequently is asked: whether, pending completion of the said white paper, it will declare flights within the EU to be internal flights and on that basis immediately impose a tax on kerosene for use in civil aviation, the proceeds being used to fund environmental projects? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The Commission recalls its position on taxation of kerosene used in international aviation as presented in the report (1) recommending that excise duties on mineral oil should be extended to aviation kerosene as legal situation allows the Community to levy such a tax on all air carriers soon as the international including those from third countries. This position has not changed. Following the debates in Council, the Commission commissioned a study on the analysis of the taxation of aviation fuel. This work has been completed and the Commission has presented its conclusions recently in the communication on air transport and environment to the Parliament and the other institutions (2). The Commission does not, at this stage, intra-Community flights as domestic (national) flights in the sense of the Chicago Convention. It will in co-ordination with ongoing preparatory work at the level of the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO), continue its work on a range of market-based options including taxation aimed at reducing the environmental impact of air transport with a view to launch an initiative in 2001. intend to declare all (1) COM(96) 549 final. (2) COM(1999) 640 final. (2000/C 225 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/99 by Salvador JovØ Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Investment aid for flax processing The Order of 5 April 1999 concerning a call for projects under Law 50/1985 on regional incentive measures, published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado Espaæol (Official Bulletin of the Spanish State) of 25 May 1999 (p. 197), grants a subsidy of Ptas 20 160 470 to the firm Colisur 2000 Ltd. , Picón, Ciudad Real. Under paragraph 2(12) of the annex to Commission Decision 94/173/EC (1) of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products, All investments in the flax and hemp sector are excluded except where they concern products for new non-food uses or modernisation without increase in total capacity in the region concerned. í In the Commissionís opinion, is the subsidy granted to Colisur 2000 compatible with the terms of this Commission decision and with other legislation in force? (1) OJ L 79, 23. 3. 1994, p. 29. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/65 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 January 2000) Law 50/1985 on regional aid measures and the provisions implementing those measures constitute regional State aid scheme No 38/87, compatible with the common market and authorised by the Commission on 1 June 1987. The purpose of the scheme is to provide financial support for productive investment in certain sectors in certain regions of Spain, granting assistance at a selective rate, so as to achieve a balanced distribution of economic activities over the country. This scheme appears, on the face of it, an appropriate instrument to support the investment project mentioned by the Honourable Member, Colisur 2000 Sociedad Limitada, because the project relates to the agri-industrial sector (flax) and is situated in Castile-La Mancha, and in view of the intensity of aid, which is 17 % of the cost. As this project involves agricultural products, it must, in addition to meeting the requirements imposed on all projects irrespective of sector of activity, comply with the Guidelines and appropriate measures for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural productsí (1), and, as it involves flax, with point 2. 12 of the selection criteria for investments annexed to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products and repealing Decision 90/342/EEC (2). including the analysis of each individual project and the The management of the State aid scheme, selection of the most deserving, is up to the national Government and the regional authorities in accordance with their respective responsibilities. Consequently, the Commission has no detailed knowledge of the content of individual projects in receipt of a subsidy under this scheme. However, the selection process established by the aforementioned arrangements for implementing Law 50/1985 (which were notified to the Commission in the course of authorisation) should ensure that all the aid granted is allocated to investment projects fulfilling the requirements of the national and Community legislation applicable. In the case of Colisur 2000, S. L. these requirements include the relevant selection criteria. At all events, if the Commission received evidence that the conditions of the authorised aid scheme had not been fulfilled, it would take action in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3). (1) OJ C 29, 2. 2. 1996, p. 4. (2) OJ L 79, 23. 3. 1994, p. 31. (3) OJ L 83, 27. 3. 1999, p. 1. (2000/C 225 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/99 by Salvador JovØ Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Olive oil stocks Following the review of olive oil stocks, stock levels in Italy are 50 % lower than initially forecast, and in Greece approximately 30 % lower. What does the Commission consider to be the cause of this enormous shortfall? Does it intend to revise downwards the production levels forecast for both countries in the light of this development? Since the reliability of statistics will be of prime importance in the forthcoming common organisation of the market, what are the measures the Commission has taken and intends to take in order to avoid recurrence of similar situations in the future and to ensure that the new rules are fair and do not discriminate against other Member States?