91998E3279

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) and John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Aid arrangements

The owner of a grain and feedstuffs company in Denmark has got into difficulties with the system because he has not provided a full guarantee for non-food rape contracts. The guarantee required is 120 % of the EU aid per hectare for the contracts concerned. He has been fined DKR 200 000 by the EU Directorate for not providing the full guarantee in time. The fine seems unjust for such a minor offence that has cost neither the EU, the Danish state nor third parties anything. Nor was the company able to benefit from the offence.

Previously, the EU Directorate normally phoned if further guarantees were required before the end of a certain deadline. This procedure was changed without warning in 1996, and the telephone calls stopped. Application of the rules was tightened so that there could no longer be any exemption from the EU requirement that 15 % of the guarantee has to be paid in fines if the 15 April deadline is exceeded.

Does the Commission not think that this is an absurd interpretation of EU rules and administration when such a small offence can cost a company DKR 200 000?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 1998)

Commission Regulation (EC) 1586/97 of 29 July 1997 laying down detailed implementing rules for the use of set-aside land for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption(1) ("industrial set-aside") lays down provisions on the lodging and release of security.

Strict measures are needed to ensure compliance with the conditions laid down so as to prevent improper use of the raw materials in question on their normal marketing circuits. Member States manage and check the application of these measures, including the conditions for releasing the security.

In the case raised by the Honourable Member, it would seem that the security was forfeit in accordance with the horizontal regulation on the system of securities for agricultural products, in particular the provisions concerning evidence that the primary requirements have been met. The Commission cannot but agree with an interpretation confirming the validity of the rules, which were introduced after full consideration of the implications by Member States' representatives in the appropriate fora.

(1) OJ L 215, 7.8.1997.