WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006.
C 225 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Do Member States currently inform their citizens of the implications and powers of this Hague Convention in, for example, passports or literature relating to living abroad? Will this situation change with the introduction of the proposed Council regulation? Is the Commission aware of Convention? the degree of compliance by Member States with the terms of the Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1999) Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (1) states that the international jurisdiction for which it provides is to be exercised in conformity with the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and in particular Articles 3 and 16 thereof. In other words, an authority or a court of a Member State which is a priori competent by virtue of the spousesí joint child being habitually resident in that Member State (Article 3 of the draft Regulation) may not take measures relating to parental responsibility before a decision under the Hague Convention is taken as to whether the child should be returned or not, if that habitual residence is the consequence of the child being wrongfully removed or retained. The Commission has no information on the steps taken by Member States to inform their nationals of the implications and effects of this Convention. The adoption of the Regulation will create no obligations for the Member States to provide information; the information measures mentioned by the Honourable Member remain within the competence of the Member States. The Commission can, however, indicate that the Hague Conference regularly organises meetings of all the Central Authorities designated to monitor the implementation of the Convention, and seminars intended to raise the awareness of national judges as to how it operates. The Commission is not informed about cases of possible non-compliance with the Convention in question. It would add that the Convention leaves some margin of discretion for the national authorities requested to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, particularly when the child has become settled in its new environment (Article 12) or if the return of the child would expose it to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13). (1) COM(1999) 220 final. (2000/C 225 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1999) Subject: Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006 The Commission has fixed the level of resources to be made available for each Member State for the new taking as the generation of agricultural development programmes for the period from 2000-2006, criterion the average funds approved over the last three years for each Member State. As a result of this distribution system, Greece will receive a mere 3 % of total funds to be made available for agricultural development, despite the fact that agriculture in Greece is particularly disadvantaged owing to the large agricultural population, the small size and family character of agricultural holdings and the particularly low agricultural income. According to the Greek Government, it is the Brussels ábureaucracyí which is responsible for the reduced take-up rate over the last three years, since it has not allowed Greek programmes submitted to be adopted, and as a result the final percentage of funds for Greece has fallen. Will the Commission say: 1. Does it intend to review the allocation of funds, so that this can take place on the basis of the real situation and needs of the agricultural sector in each Member State? 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/27 2. Who is responsible for the failure to adopt Greek programmes that have been submitted and what measures will be taken to avoid delays which, inter alia, affect future allocations of resources? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1999) The Commission underlines that out of 22 measures for rural development under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), in Greece only four (the three existing accompanying measures, and the aids to less-favoured areas) are concerned by the financial allocations of EAGGF-guarantee section. In fact, Greece, as part of the objective 1 regions for the whole of its territory will benefit in the period 2000-2006 from an additional and important financial assistance from the guidance section of EAGGF, within the total amount of € 20,96 million of the structural funds attributed to Greece. This will enable this Member State to implement the remaining 18 measures for rural development. Indeed, the Guidance section of EAGGF is reserved to objective 1 regions. 1. The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the flexibility which exists in the framework of the financial allocations. Firstly, the Commission is prepared to adjust within three years the decision on financial allocations by Member State, in accordance with the provisions of Article 46(3) of the above Regulation and within the overall limits of the resources available. Secondly, the implementation rules for the rural development programmes adopted by the Commission in July 1999 make clear that where resources unused by Member States in a given year reach a particular level, compared to their original planning figure, they can be áre-cycledí to Member States with additional needs that conform with their programming documents. This will help to meet contingency pressures, although over the whole period the Member States would have to remain within their allocation set out in the Commission decision in force. The Commission does not attribute responsibilities to anyone in relation to the approval of Greek 2. programmes for rural development. It should be recognised however that the accompanying measures in the period 1994-1999, due to their innovative and relatively complex character, faced some difficulties in the starting period, thus their implementation was not as speedy as initially expected. The rate of absorption of credits from the Guidance section between 1994-1999 in Greece was however extremely high and successful. Thus globally the policy for rural development in this Member State during the above period was satisfactorily implemented. (1) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1845/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (11 October 1999) Subject: Products of protected designation of origin (PDI) and protected geographical indication (PGI) ü private certification bodies ü freedom of competition For some months the Italian Government has been seeking to assign responsibility for the certification of certain PDI products, including Grana Padano, to a single private body. Although the Italian anti-trust authority and a number of courts have ruled that this measure is illegal, the Italian Government seems set on adopting a law (Community Law 1999 AC 5619-B) sharply restricting freedom of competition by not allowing individual producers or producersí associations direct access to the PDI control system, denying the possibility for several private bodies to certify the same PDI product, and encouraging protection consortia to extend their internal representativeness in order to meet the requirements of the Uni EN 45011 rules in order to become certification bodies themselves