You are on page 1of 2

8.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/137

Since, to my knowledge, no such station is operating as yet, will the Commission say:

1. What amount of funding was provided, and when, for the operation of the station?

2. Why the station is not in operation and what developments there have been in this respect?

3. Whether it is satisfied with the management of the funds concerned and, if not, what steps it will take
to ensure transparency in the administration of those funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

1. A pilot action was planned within the context of the ‘National Operational Programme 
Development of the Agricultural Sector’ under the 2nd Community Support Framework (1994-2000) for
Greece, concerning the digitalisation of the Ministry of Agriculture’s existent data on rural development
and the purchase of a limited number of decoders. This action was implemented by the Ministry of
agriculture after great delays only in the summer of 2001.

2. The creation of a station and the establishment of a rural television development programme,
including the purchase of 20 000 decoders and satellite antennas (10 000 for collective entities and 10 000
for a selected group of individuals) was proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture during the 3rd
Community Support Framework within the context of the ‘National Operational Programme  Rural
Development (2000-2006)’. Already at an early stage, this action faced major programming and
implementing difficulties and was withdrawn from the programme upon the Commission’s request in
spring 2002. No expenditure has been made for this action during the 3rd CSF. The corresponding
measure will be eliminated from the ‘National Operational Programme  Rural Development (2000-2006)’
while the initial amount foreseen for this action will be reallocated in other actions within the context of
the modification of the programme that is already underway.

3. The Commission will consider the outcome and management by the Ministry of agriculture of the
first pilot action on digitalisation and will decide on the financial follow-up within the context of the final
report of the ‘National Operational Programme  Development of the Agricultural Sector’, which has not
yet been submitted by the Greek authorities and the closure of the 2nd Community Support Framework
(1994-1999) for Greece.

(2003/C 110 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/02


by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Open competition COM/A/6/01  Administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of external relations and
management aid to non-member countries

Could the Commission answer the following points regarding the recruitment competition COM/A/6/01
and in particular specify:

 How many candidates were finally included in the reserve list?

 How many citizens from each Member State were finally included in the reserve list?

 How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other
EU Institution came to the interview (exam f)?

 How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other
EU Institution were finally included in the reserve list? (Please specify for each Member State.)
C 110 E/138 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.2003

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Competition COM/A/6/01 has just been completed. According to the notice of the competition, Field 1
concerns external relations for which the reserve list figure is 80, and Field 2 concerns management of aid
to non-member countries for which the reserve list figure is 250.

Statistics concerning this above open competition are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to provide full factual answers to the last two
questions. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2003/C 110 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2972/02


by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Funding the disposal of BSE risk material

At least since the BSE crisis, which has taken on devastating proportions throughout Europe for both
farmers and consumers, the need for tight controls of feedingstuffs and specialist disposal of animal
carcasses has been apparent.

Initiatives and programmes have since then been launched, at both national and regional level, with the
aim of disposing of BSE risk material according to the state of the art, so that a similar disaster can be
prevented in future.

In South Tyrol, for instance, there is a carcass disposal service that is unique throughout Italy. It is 100 %-
funded by the province, and has been disposing of all BSE risk material from all slaughterhouses for the
past two years. Projects of this type help greatly to improve the disposal standards of stockbreeders in the
case of animal carcasses. Animals are in fact very seldom buried or illegally disposed of at unknown sites.
This also ensures that when sharp falls in meat prices make compulsory slaughter procedures necessary,
carcasses no longer get into the food chain.

But the 100 % subsidies announced in Brussels in 2000 have a five-year limit. This limit expires in 2004.

Does the Commission not agree that there is a need, particularly in the interest of consumer and
environmental protection, to continue services of this kind by continuing to grant a 100 % contribution
after 2004?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

In view of the exceptional circumstances due to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis, the
Commission has approved a number of aid measures, which aimed to minimise the risks to consumers
and the environment and mitigate the financial impact on the meat sector and disposal services. These
measures are in place for a limited period only since, in the long term, the polluter-pays principle  as
referred to in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty  must be complied with.

The Commission has recently been asked by various Member States to examine ways of avoiding
distortions of competition as a result of such assistance. Several Member States have pointed out that the
current situation, whereby slaughterhouses or farmers in certain Member States and regions receive