WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. Community aid for the processing of grape juices (DG Agriculture).
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/83 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000) the As outlined in the answer to the the Honourable Memberís Written Question E-2824/99 (1), Commission as such does not exercise any direct control functions with regard to specific waste shipments under Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The supervision and control procedures established by the Regulation and directly applicable in the Member States, are applied by the authorities designated by the Member States according to Article 36 of the Regulation. It is up to them to request Hungary to provide the information required by Article 19 (3) of the Regulation and, more generally, to determine on the basis of the facts of a specific case in question, whether to authorise a given waste shipment or not. The Commission notes the information provided by the Honourable Member, that the waste shipment in question was apparently shipped to Germany for final disposal. It has so far not had any indications, that in authorising the shipment the German authorities would have acted in violation of Community legislation, and, more specifically, in breach of Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93. The Commission will request the German authorities for further information, following which it will determine whether further action on its part is necessary. (1) OJ C 280 E, 3. 10. 2000, p. 139. (2001/C 46 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Community aid for the processing of grape juices (DG Agriculture) In the context of the reform of the COM in wine (Regulation EC 1493/1999) (1), due to come into force on 1 August 2000, and in accordance with Article 35 of the Regulation, Community aid for the processing of grape juices from table grapes (the use of which is illegal in winemaking) will no longer be granted. This lack of Community aid will involve an increase in production costs of ITL 11 986 per hectolitre for Italian grape juice producers. This will lead to social tensions, especially in the more economically disadvantaged regions. Can the Commission therefore say whether the implementing regulations for the COM in wine, which are currently being revised, might provide for the maintenance of aid for table-grape juices, so as to guarantee equal opportunities for all EU producers? (1) OJ L 179, 14. 7. 1999, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the new market organisation (COM) for wine will come into force on 1 August 2000. Article 35(3) restricts aid on grapes, grape must and concentrated grape must used to make grape juice or other fruit products to wine grape varieties, i. e. those from which wine may be produced for the market. No aid will therefore be paid for production of grape juice and other food products from table grapes of varieties not classified as wine grapes. C 46 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 It was the Councilís wish to restrict the aid to wine grapes, its purpose as part of the COM being to reduce the volume of wine on the market. Table grapes fall exclusively within the COM for fruit and vegetables. Given this clear exclusion by the Council of aid for grape juice production from table grapes the Commission cannot propose any implementing provisions to the contrary. (2001/C 46 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas On 1 October 1999, Italy submitted its proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas for the period 2000-2006; the proposal was, however rejected. The statistics used by Italy ü based on local employment systems ü conflicted with the Eurostat statistics on the administrative provinces referred to by the Commission (benchmarks for all Member States). Italy thus has to áadjustí its proposal. This matter is of particular concern to Turin and its 936 000 inhabitants: according to the 1995-1997 unemployment statistics for the province, Turin should not be eligible for funds under Objective 2 (unless workers that have been laid off and are recipients of income support from the Cassa Integrazioneí earnings supplement fund are included in the statistics ü a fair argument which the EU for some reason rejects); more recent statistics (1996-1998), meanwhile, appear to qualify the province and most of the city of Turin for inclusion in Objective 2. For 2000-2006, Italy is entitled to approximately ITL 4 000 billion (for Objective 2) of EU funds. Piedmont could receive some ITL 1 400 billion (taking into account national co-financing) over seven years and Turin should receive over 100 billion per year (even on the basis of the old statistics). Turin is still awaiting authorisation from Brussels, however. Does the Commission foresee any fresh obstacles? What outstanding issues need to be resolved? How long will it take for the procedures to be finalised, albeit tardily? Can Italy be assured that it will receive co-financing? Is the Commission aware of the fact that each dayís delay is a step backwards for the population of Piedmont and for Turin in terms of economic recovery? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) Italy sent the Commission its Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission replied on 11 October that the proposal was unacceptable owing to non-compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria of paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of each countryís Objective 2 areas. To ensure identical treatment of the Member States the same statistical series must be used for verification of these criteria in each of them. Thus in line with Article 4(2) the Commission on 23 June 1999 sent all Member States concerned by Objective 2 the statistics pertaining to the criteria. As decided by the Council these were the figures available at the time of the Berlin European Council. For the unemployment rate this means that the figures considered are those for 1995, 1996 and 1997. These figures have been used to zone for Objective 2 in the eleven Member States for which the Commission has already drawn up the list of eligible areas for the 2000-2006 programming period