You are on page 1of 2


2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/65

Kingdom reports the landings of its vessels in its territory each month but without detailing the home
ports of the vessels or the ports of landing. As for local vessels, 222 are currently entered in the
Community fishing vessel register, including 176 of under 15 metres (m), 35 measuring from 15 m to
24 m and 11 of over 24 m.

As for the exclusion of blue whiting and Norway pout, this is purely to clarify what is covered by ‘fishing
for demersal species’. The biological behaviour of these two species resembles that of benthic species
(living on the sea bottom) but they are normally taken using different techniques closer to those used in
pelagic fishing. Fishing for these two species is subject also to other restrictions, including the ‘Norway
pout box’, special mesh sizes, by-catches and consequently does not need to be covered by the licensing
system applied to the Shetland Islands.

It is quite possible for vessels not expressly authorised under Article 18 of the proposal for a Council
Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common
fisheries policy (2) to fish lawfully, for example, for blue whiting or for non-demersal species such as
mackerel or herring.

The majority of studies available to the Commission concern stocks occurring both in the Shetland Box
and in adjacent waters but do not deal specifically with the state of stocks in that area. These studies can
be consulted on the ICES internet site at the following address:

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.

(2003/C 110 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2525/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 September 2002)

Subject: Reorganisation of the Enterprise DG’s Innovation Directorate

Can the Commission provide details of its plans for the reorganisation of the Innovation Directorate of the
Directorate-General for Enterprise?

In particular, are there plans to transfer units between Brussels and Luxembourg? If so, which units?

Are there plans to transfer units to other institutions or departments? If so, which units?

Are there plans to abolish any A-grade posts? If so, which posts?

Are the measures planned consistent with the decisions of the Member States’ governments of 8 April
1965 and the Commission’s commitments to the Luxembourg authorities?

Reply given by M. Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

As announced in the policy paper ‘Future of the Luxembourg site’ presented by the Commission in
January 2001, the Commission is re-examining in depth the organisation  including the location  of
certain departments based in Luxembourg such as the Innovation Directorate of Directorate General
(DG) Enterprise.

In making this examination, the Commission works on the basis of the guidelines set out in the 2001
policy paper:
 to consolidate the Luxembourg site as one of the Commission’s seats;
 to establish a link between the setting up of new activities in Luxembourg and the transfer of small
units to Brussels; these changes should be determined in such a way as to maximise the operational
efficiency of the Commission’s departments while keeping both budgetary costs and, above all, the
transfer of persons to a minimum; provisions should be established to provide relevant professional
C 110 E/66 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.2003

advice and support for staff who may be affected by changes relating to Luxembourg; in any case,
these changes can only take place after negotiations with the Luxembourg authorities, the conclusion
of an overall agreement set out in clear and unequivocal terms, and concertation with the trade unions
and professional organisations;

 to take particular account of the existence of multicultural educational and social structures;

 to consult formally with the trade unions and professional organisations, as well as generally with the
staff, about the development of a strategic approach to the Luxembourg site;

 to continue the dialogue between the Luxembourg authorities and the community institutions, in
particular with regard to administrative aspects and the physical conditions of the departments located
in Luxembourg.

No decision has yet been taken. The Commission meanwhile reaffirms its engagement in innovation policy
in the context of improving the competitiveness of European enterprises. The Commission therefore fully
endorsed the importance accorded by the 6th Framework Programme to the role of innovation in
construction of the European research area. At present, the Commission is reflecting on how best to
organise the Innovation Directorate for even more successful management of this policy.

(2003/C 110 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Checks on compliance with the origin rules for imports of ACP sugar

Under the Sugar Protocol, certain ACP countries are permitted to export sugar to the EU at prices which
are attractive to them.

1. Can the Commission confirm that this sugar is produced solely in the ACP countries concerned?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the sugar in question consists of surplus sugar produced in the
ACP countries and not surpluses which have arisen because the ACP country concerned has also imported
sugar from the world market?

3. How is this checked and how many inspection missions, if any, have been carried out from Brussels?

4. Have any studies recently been performed which shed light on which sections of society in the ACP
countries benefit from the Sugar Protocol?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

1. The Commission has no reason to believe that the sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol does not
originate solely in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries concerned.

2. The Sugar Protocol does not prohibit the ACP from importing sugar from other countries while at
the same time exporting their own production to the Community.

3. The origin of the ACP sugar is certified and verified in accordance with the relevant provisions of
Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement, notably Title IV on proofs of origin and Title V on
arrangements for administrative cooperation. Inspection missions can be carried out to identify and
prevent contraventions of the provisions of Protocol 1, which has not been the case with regard to the
origin of sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol.