WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Transfer of 3 000 tonnes of anchovies between Portugal and France.
C 72 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6. 3. 2001 basis where countries put forward an implementation plan, which the Community would where necessary support through assistance. (2001/C 72 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/00 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Transfer of 3 000 tonnes of anchovies between Portugal and France The annual scientific report issued by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recommended adopting drastic measures to guarantee the conservation of certain species, including anchovies, whose breeding rates over the previous two years had proven unsatisfactory, and thus advocated closing the fishing grounds between January and June 2000. Commissioner Fischlerís proposal to the Council of Ministers on a reduction in TACs and quotas for this species advocated a reduction in the TAC of as much as 85 %. The Council of Ministers ultimately agreed on a figure of 51 % but retained the option of a quota exchange of 3 000 tonnes between Portugal and France, in spite of the alarming data used by the Commission in the report. Back in 1995 the Council had agreed to authorise a transfer of 5 000 tonnes between these two countries. The Court of Justice rejected a Spanish appeal against that agreement in October 1999. In view of the grave crisis affecting this stock, the Spanish sector has decided to lodge an appeal with the backing of some of the governments of regions in which the fleets concerned are based. What view does the Commission take of the appeal which the sector itself has brought before the Court of Justice against the agreement by the Council of Ministers authorising the quota transfer between Portugal and France? How does it view the suggestion of the scientific committee that, before coastal fishing commences, a committee of experts should conduct a survey on the state of the stock, which would serve as the basis for fixing the annual quota and the total volume of anchovies which may be caught? Does it not believe that fixing a quota for a six-month period destabilises the sector and prevents it from planning the fishing year properly? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The Commission is of the opinion that the transfer of a part of the quota of anchovy from Portugal to France, in accordance with footnote (2) relative to the stock of anchovy in International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) Divisions VIIIc and IXa, in annex ID of Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/ 1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1), is an integral part of the management of the stocks of anchovy, compatible with Community legislation and principles and a good basis to achieve an equitable balance between the needs of the fishing industry from France and from Spain. As a consequence, the position of the Commission in case T-54/00, Federación de Cofradías de Guipœzcoa against the Council, challenging the aforesaid transfer, has been to issue a request for intervention in support of the Council. 6. 3. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/15 In regard with the suggestion by scientists to assess the stock of anchovy at the beginning of the fishing season, in order to take a mid-year decision on the total allowable catch (TAC), the Commission has already adopted this approach for 2000 and is studying the possibility to adopt it as a management strategy whenever there is a warning that the stock is at risk. Advice has been requested from the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries. The Commission agrees that the setting up of a provisional TAC, to be reviewed during the year pending scientific assessment, may create difficulties to the fishing industry. For this reason, the Commission intends to reserve such a scheme only for cases of biological danger. In normal circumstances, the traditional approach of an annual TAC will be preferred. (1) OJ L 341, 31. 12. 1999. (2001/C 72 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1049/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: OLAF Further to the answer given by Mr Kinnock to Written Question E-0262/00 (1), can the Commission: ü say whether, since the establishment of UCLAF, the conduct of any member of the UCLAF or OLAF staff has been found to be in breach of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations of officials or of Articles12(2) and 55 of the Conditions of employment of other servants? If so, can the Commission, while maintaining the requisite confidentiality of information, give out the facts and indicate the measures it has taken? ü confirm that, in the event of accusations which prove to be defamatory, it will not take direct action against the previous who made the defamatory accusations but, under Article 24, will leave it to the official concerned by the defamatory accusation to defend himself/herself? Can the Commission also say what measures of assistance it can give under Article 24 to an official concerned by a defamatory accusation? How does the Commission envisage guaranteeing that the holding by a member of the OLAF staff of secret information acquired during the performance of his/her duties and possible trade union activity by that official will not result in ethical conflicts (of powers and responsibilities)? (1) OJ C 374 E, 28. 12. 2000, p. 48. Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 May 2000) Before engaging a new member of staff the Commission verifies on the basis of appropriate documents submitted by candidates that the basic conditions laid down in Article 28 of the Staff Regulations and in Articles 12(2) and 55 of the Conditions for employment of other servants are met. The Commission has no information which suggest that officials and other servants working for the Unit on Coordination of Fraud prevention (UCLAF) did not comply with these conditions. Under the terms of the relevant Regulation, the Director of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF) has a similar obligation as appointing authority for OLAF staff. Any breach of the Staff Regulations by OLAF personnel will therefore be treated in the same disciplinary way as illegal behaviour of any Commission official. Although the Director of OLAF has indicated to the Commission that there is no element to his knowledge suggesting that officials or other servants working for OLAF did not comply with the rules mentioned above, he has nevertheless indicated that a disciplinary procedure is under way concerning possible misconduct involving an OLAF official. At this stage, a final decision has not been taken and no further information can therefore be given to the Honourable Member