WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/99 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. Dutch fisheries and the Multiannual Guidance Programme (MGP).
C 203 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 concerned have a base, given that consumers do not generally shop outside their own area, and this will complicate the analysis of the effects on all those markets considerably. If the Commission receives a notification for the purposes of Regulation 4064/89 (1), will it deem itself competent in the matter, or does it take the view that it should refer the notified concentration to the competent authorities of the Member States? (1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1. Answer to written question by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 November 1999) Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings enables a Member State, within three weeks of the date of receipt of the notification, to request that the operation notified should be referred to it for examination. In the case referred to by the Honourable Members, the possibility that the Spanish and French competition authorities might request such a referral was recently raised, in particular by the press in these two Member States. If they did so, it would not be the first time that the Spanish competition authorities requested such referral. On 17 August 1999, the Commission referred case IV M-1555 Heineke v Cruzcampo to the Spanish authorities. Two conditions governing referral are laid down in Article 9(2) of the Regulation: (a) the merger must threaten to create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded on a market within that Member State, which presents all the characteristics of a distinct market; and (b) the merger affects competition on a market within that Member State which presents all the characteristics of a distinct market and which does not constitute a substantial part of the common market. The Commission must take a decision to refer or not to refer within six weeks from the date of notification (instead of the usual period of one month), and decide whether it will itself deal with the case in order to maintain or restore effective competition on the relevant market or whether it will refer the entire case or part of it to the authorities of the Member States concerned. If the case is referred by the Commission, the Regulation requires the competition authorities in the Member States to publish a report or announce their conclusions within a period of no more than four months after the Commission referral. Despite public reactions by certain Governments, so far no Member State has lodged a request for a referral regarding the proposed take-over of Promodes by Carrefour. (2000/C 203 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/99 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1999) Subject: Dutch fisheries and the Multiannual Guidance Programme (MGP) 1. A number of Member States have failed to comply with the objectives of the MGP. Only the Netherlands has been declared to be at fault. To what extent have the Member States failed to comply with the objectives? Why has only the Netherlands been declared to be at fault? 2. The objectives for each Member State under the MGP are based on the information on the size of the fleet from the Communityís fleet register. The Court of Auditors has repeatedly drawn attention to the inadequacies of this register: it contains a lot of wrong information. How does the Commission intend to respond to the Courtís criticism? Is the Commission prepared to redefine the objectives on the basis of reliable information? 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/41 If countries adhere to the total allowable catch (TAC) and the quota, is it right for the fleet to 3. undergo radical downsizing under the MGP or for it to have so few days at sea that the quota cannot be fished? What are the arguments for adhering to the MGP structural programme? 4. Why are the reduction percentages in the MGP fixed for five years while the TAC can vary considerably from year to year? Is it possible to bring the reduction percentages in line with the TACs during the life of the programme? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) 1. The Commission reports annually to the Council and Parliament on changes in the fishing effort in various segments of the fishing fleets of the Member States as compared with the original, intermediate and final aims of the multiannual guidance programmes (MGP). The last report concerns 1997 (1) and mentions in particular the delay in certain Member States. The Commission is currently preparing the annual report for 1998. The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against the Netherlands concerning implementa- tion of its MGP. On that occasion the Commission looked at how all the other Member States were honouring their obligations when implementing the MGP. 2. Data in the Community register of Community fishing vessels are governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/98 of 30 September 1998 (2) which makes the Member States responsible for the collection of the data and immediate transmission in electronic form to the Commission. The data in the register cover the Community fleet and all changes to it since 1 January 1989. its reliability has been improved considerably. Member States recently Since the register was set up, checked their national registers when implementing MGP IV (1 January 1997), following new segmenta- tion of the fleet, the inventory of fishing gear or the implementation of fishing effort arrangements. A programme of meetings between Member States is in hand in order to improve further the quality of the data in the register. The Commission is willing to judge each case where the original or final aims of earlier MGP have changed on the basis of new data in the light of this additional information and the register as a whole. 3. The Commission must stress that total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas determine the annual limits on the volumes of fish stocks which may be caught while MGP determine limits on fishing effort. These are complementary ways of managing fisheries and their objectives require separate compliance, as laid down in Articles 4, 8 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (3). 4. The annual nature of catch limits (TACs and quotas) is not incompatible with the multiannual nature of the MGP since TACs are fixed on the basis of the latest scientific information on the state of stocks while the measures to reduce the capacity of the fleet (MGP) are structural measures which form part of the strategy of the fishing enterprises. The Commission is considering changes in the rules to align the time periods covered by the two schemes more closely. Because fishing is still a very opportunist activity which moves from one fishing ground to another and because many commercial fisheries cover a number of species, it is difficult to adjust the objectives of the MGP precisely to fluctuations in fish stocks using the current rules. However, this possibility does exist in the provisions concerning the MGP IV whose mid-term review is imminent. (1) COM(1999) 175 final. (2) OJ L 266, 1. 10. 1998. (3) OJ L 389, 31. 12. 1992