WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/00 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission. The wreck of the Erika and compensation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector from the Structural Funds.
C 26 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 The majority of the CEN standards applying to the vessels and tanks used to transport gases should be finalised, and thus incorporated in those annexes, during the next adaptation to technical process of the annexes to Directive 94/55/EC, planned for 1 July 2001. In the meantime the Commission will continue to ensure that the laws in force are consistent, and to that end is proposing an amendment to the provisions on the carriage of dangerous goods in order to bring this in line with Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on transportable pressure equipment (2). Parliament gave a favourable reception to that proposal on first reading. Member States requests regarding the possibility of adopting different provisions applying to local transport are subject to acceptance by a committee consisting of all the Member States and chaired by the Commission. This would enable the maximum of coordination needed at European level to be provided. (1) OJ L 319, 12. 12. 1994. (2) OJ L 138, 1. 6. 1999. (2001/C 26 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/00 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission (4 February 2000) Subject: The wreck of the Erikaí and compensation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector from the Structural Funds The wreck of the Erikaí resulted in serious economic damage to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, one already hard hit by various crises. Some fishermen have lost their fishing grounds around the sunken parts of the Erikaísí hull, which constitute veritable ádelayed-action bombsí. Others have lost the tools of their trade, which have been polluted by fuel oil. They have all refused to put to sea for some time and have lost valuable fishing days. As for the oyster farmers, some have paid dearly for the disaster: oils slicks have penetrated their oyster farms and destroyed not only the oysters themselves but also the equipment used in oyster farming. Finally, consumer confidence in these seafood products has dwindled away, with falling sales the likely outcome. Faced by this economic catastrophe, persons who have suffered damage may apply for compensation from FIPOL (International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund). However, no emergency aid is granted within the European Union. Press releases dated 4 and 13 January 2000 indicate, however, that the European Commission takes the view that the Structural Funds might be used to assist victims of the storm. Is the European Union also contemplating using these Funds to aid the fishermen and oyster farmers who were victims of the oil spill? If so, what will it do if some regions which are dependent on fishing are not eligible under Objective 2? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) may contribute towards compensating the losses suffered by fishermen and oyster farmers as a result of the oil slick under the next French single programming document (SPD) on structural assistance in fisheries and aquaculture 2000-06, in accordance with the FIFG implementing Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1). 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/21 The French SPD, which has not yet been submitted to the Commission, will cover the whole of France apart from Objective 2 areas. Thus the regions affected by the oil slick may benefit from all the measures provided for under the FIFG Regulation. (1) OJ L 337, 30. 12. 1999. (2001/C 26 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 February 2000) Subject: State aid to the EPAC ü Empresa para a Agro-Alimentaçªo e Cereais, SA (Agro-foods and Cereals Company, Ltd) The EPAC, SA agro-foods and cereals company was recently dissolved by the Portuguese Government, leaving only the EPAC-Comercial, which according to reports in the press is also under threat unless the Commission authorises state aid. The EPAC, SA employed over 1 000 workers and played a major role in cereal marketing in Portugal. Still at stake are over 160 jobs. What is the Commissionís position with regard to retaining the EPAC-Comercial at least, and hence safeguarding the jobs of the more than 160 people it employs? What, in the light of the decisions taken, are the Commissionís responsibilities regarding the dissolution of the EPAC, SA and the hundreds of people now out of work as a result? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 March 2000) The Commission is responsible for monitoring State aids under the EC treaty, Articles 87-89 (former Articles 92-94) of which make aid granted by the Member States that distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings, or the production of certain goods, incompatible with the common market. At the end of 1996 the Commission received a complaint from private operators engaged in the cereals trade concerning a guarantee granted by Portugal to the Empresa para a Agri-Alimentaçªo e Cereais, SA (EPAC) in relation to a loan to consolidate its bank debt. On 9 July 1997, the Commission adopted a negative final decision with regard to this guarantee. Portugal did not apply this decision, which it referred to the Court of Justice. Legal proceedings are still continuing. Portugal also notified the Commission of a restructuring programme for this firm and an aid measure for In view of the relationship existing between these two public-sector the harbour company Silopor. companies, the Commission considered these cases together. The restructuring plans were discussed at length by Portugal and the Commission and proceedings were opened under Article 88(2) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty. (1) The final version was sent at the end of 1999. The Commission will adopt its final position on this matter as soon as possible. As regards the employment aspect, the Commission would stress that the financial difficulties of EPAC resulted from its failure to adapt to the European single market in cereals, not to any obligations arising from compliance with the Community competition rules. The Community guidelines on State aid for firms in difficulty (2) are based on the restoration of the economic viability of the firms which would benefit. These firms have to take internal measures under a restructuring plan to restore their long-term viability within a reasonable timescale based on realistic assumptions. The aid may not have a harmful impact on the other firms active on the market which do not have access to similar aid