WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons.
C 225 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 January 2000) The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel decision did not call into question the Community aid scheme under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector (1). The Commission considers that support for Community producers is guaranteed by the current system of compensatory aid, under which the amount fixed for each marketing year corresponds to the difference between the flat-rate reference income (which was increased by 5 % in 1998 and up to 8 % from 1999) and the average prices obtained during the year in which the bananas were marketed. Through providing full compensation regardless of price trends on the Community market, the system thus ensures that Community production is sold. The mechanismís effectiveness was confirmed during 1999, when banana prices on the world market slumped and compensatory aid enabled all Community production to be sold and producersí income to be maintained. The Commission takes the view that the compensatory aid scheme will absorb the impact, at production level, of the proposed changes. The financial statement presented with the Commission proposal estimated that its budgetary impact would be to increase expenditure by € 77 million and revenue by € 30 million. The budgetary impact of applying a system based solely on tariffs cannot be quantified at this stage. African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers are already covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 856/ 1999 of 22 April 1999 establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (2). The Commission will, in any event, assess whether this support (which has been proposed in the light of the previous changes to the common market organisation) will be sufficient to help traditional ACP suppliers retain their place in the Community market. (1) OJ L 170, 13. 7. 1993. (2) OJ L 108, 27. 4. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons 1. Has the Commission any knowledge of the number of nationals of Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) who have sought permission to establish themselves in the EU in the last two years in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Agreements between the CEE and the EU? Has the Commission produced any guidance for nationals of Central and Eastern European countries 2. seeking to establish themselves in accordance with these provisions? Has the Commission produced any memoranda or advice notes for the national authorities of the 3. Central and Eastern European countries concerning the right of establishment under these Agreements? Has the Commission received any complaints from nationals of Central and Eastern European 4. countries with regard to the exercise of the right of establishment under these Agreements? 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/135 Is the Commission aware of any references made by national courts to the European Court of Justice 5. of matters arising from the right of establishment under these Agreements? Does the Commission intend to take any action in the near future to promote the exercise of the 6. right of establishment under these agreements? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (13 January 2000) The questions raised by the Honourable Member touch upon the right of establishment for nationals of in the Community for the purposes of business or Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) providing services as self-employed persons. The Commission has no data or estimates on the number of CEEC nationals who have sought to 1. establish themselves in the last two years in the Member States. 2. and 3. The exercise of the right of establishment depends not only on the provisions of the Europe agreements, but also on national legislation. Therefore, it is not practical to produce any general guidance or advice for nationals of CEEC or Member States. The Commission has received some complaints concerning delays in handling requests for the right 4. of establishment. The complaints are addressed by the relevant national authority. 5. There are currently four cases in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/ 99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/C-257/99 and Jany etc. /C-268/99). The Commission has submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer 2000. No special action is foreseen to promote the exercise of the right of establishment under the Europe 6. agreements. (2000/C 225 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (1) on the certification of PDO and PGI products offered the Italian Government the option of accrediting only one private body for each designated product. This decision would appear to be detrimental to the fundamental rights of those farmers who meet the requirements laid down in the product specification, as they are obliged to accept both the prices and the inspection standards that the sole inspection body deems the most appropriate. Moreover, there have been reports of cases in which the private body, in agreement with the co-operative for the protection of designation of origin (áconsorzio di tutelaí), allegedly adopted inspection procedures which were in direct breach of the rules contained in the official product specification registered with the Commission. Can the Commission therefore state which institutions are responsible for verifying that 1. inspections carried out by private bodies comply with the rules laid down in the product specification? the 2. Would it not be appropriate to leave the choice of private inspection firms to the free market, to enable individual producers and producersí associations to seek directly the best economic and technolo- gical conditions for the certification of their products?