WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1965/98 by Klaus LUKAS to the Commission. Notification requirement
C 13/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 1. 1999 (1999/C 13/178) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1964/98 by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission (15 June 1998) Subject: Commission proposal for new agricultural policy At Question Time at the May part-session the Commission gave a written answer to a question by me about aid for maize silage as animal feed. The Commission says that as there are regions in Europe where maize cannot be cultivated (e. g. Sweden and Finland) they are allocated extra milk quotas. Are Swedish (and Finnish) farmers fully compensated by increased milk quotas? Exactly how much by way of increased milk quotas are Swedish (and Finnish) farmers allocated, and has the Commission made any calculations which show whether they fully compensate for the maize silage aid not paid to either country? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1998) Both Swedish and Finnish farmers are amongst those who benefit most from the milk quota increase the Commission is proposing in the Agenda 2000 (1) draft regulation for the milk sector. Including the 1 % increase for young farmers, which is proposed for all Member States, the Swedish quota is suggested to grow by 77 300 tons or 2,3 % and the Finnish quota by 200 000 tons or 8,4 %. The relatively high expansion of quota in both Member States is a result of their high share of mountain areas, which for Finland and Sweden is also a recognition of more difficult agronomic conditions. Most of the proposed cut in the institutional milk price is compensated by the milk cow premium. A precise calculation as suggested by the Honourable Member would be difficult. However the Commission is of the opinion that the possibility to produce more milk will help maintain rural employment and income, and be of benefit to the Swedish and Finnish economies. (1) COM(97) 2000 final. (1999/C 13/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (30 June 1998) Subject: Notification requirement Commissioner Van Miert informed the European Parliamentís Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy on 26 May 1998 that the Member States were failing to comply with the notification requirement with growing frequency. It is understood that some Member States have called in this context for the procedural rules to be so changed that aid would be deemed to have been approved if the Commission did not detect a failure to comply with the notification requirement within two months. The Commission is therefore asked: 1. In which Member States has it detected a frequent failure to comply with the notification requirement? 2. Which Member States have taken the view that, if the Commission does not detect a failure to comply with the notification requirement within a given period, the matter should be regarded as closed? 3. What measures does the Commission intend to take in this context?