Written Answers. - Forestry Premium Payments.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
64
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if he has satisfied himself with the level of transparency displayed by Coillte Teoranta in relation to the dismissal by the EU Court of First Instance of its case under Article 111 as manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law in April 2001, in view of the fact that this information was not announced by the company when it was informed by its solicitor, was not included in the annual general report, and was not mentioned by the chief executive officer in a subsequent interview in a newspaper (details supplied), only becoming public knowledge through an environmental campaign in September 2001.
[24521/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
65
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
the anticipated amount of the costs awarded against Coillte Teoranta and Ireland by the Court of First Instance when Coillte's case was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law; and the company's and the State's legal costs in this matter.
[24523/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
66
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
the reason for two years the chairman of Coillte Teoranta had been claiming in the company's annual general report that the grants disallowed by the European Commission would be clawed back from the company when the court order of the EU Court of First Instance stated clearly that the national authorities concerned do not seem to have reserved the right, when they granted the aid, to claim its repayment from the recipient in the event of a Commission decision excluding it from Community financing.
[24524/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
67
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
his views on the accuracy of the statement of the chairman of Coillte Teoranta in that company's annual report and accounts, 31 December 2000.
[24526/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
68
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
the date on which he first saw a draft of the Coillte Teoranta annual report and accounts, 31 December 2000; the observations on the contents therein he made to the company; and the company's response in this regard.
[24527/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
69
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
the contact which he has had with Coillte Teoranta since he received notice of the order of Court of First Instance in respect of Case T-244/01, Coillte Teoranta v EU Commission regarding disallowance of Ireland's attempt to divert EU funds to Coillte.
[24528/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
70
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if he has satisfied himself as to the accuracy of the record regarding the outcome of case T-244/01 in the matter of Coillte Teoranta v the EU Commission.
[24530/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 64 to 70, inclusive, together.
The case to which the Deputy refers was taken independently by Coillte Teoranta to the EU Court of First Instance on the basis of the direct and individual concern to the company of the European Commission's decision to disallow forestry premium payments made by the State to Coillte.
As the Deputy is aware, Ireland, in separate proceedings, has lodged with the European Court of Justice a challenge to the European Commission's decision. I am advised not to comment on this matter as it issub judice.
The State, having the right to do so and considering that it was in Ireland's interests, applied to intervene in the case taken by Coillte. Neither the Commission nor Coillte had any objection to this application. The EU Court of First Instance, under its rules of procedure, considered whether Coillte had the necessary standing to bring the proceedings but ruled that the application was inadmissible. In summary, what was decided by the European Court of First Instance was that Coillte was precluded from taking an independent case as it did not have standing before the court on that issue. This decision has no effect on the case taken before the European Court of Justice on behalf of Ireland.
I understand from Coillte that the decision of the Court of First Instance was not received by the company in time to be included in the annual report for 2000. In any event as will be clear from the above, the substantive issue, which is Ireland's challenge to the European Commission's decision, has not yet been adjudicated on.
As regards costs, the order of the Court of First Instance provides that Coillte shall pay the costs of the Commission. To date, the Commission has not sought to pursue to the question of costs. The legal costs incurred by Coillte are a matter for the company. The State will be requested to meet its own costs, details of which are not yet available.
With regard to Coillte's annual report, it is not required of the company to submit a draft of the document in advance of its publication, nor has it been the practice of the company so to do. I am satisfied with the manner in which Coillte fulfils its reporting requirements to me and with the way in which the company's annual reports are presented.
In conclusion, while the case taken by Coillte to the Court of First Instance does not affect Ireland's ongoing challenge to the Commission, I am, nevertheless, being kept fully informed of all developments.
