EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/264

(2004/C 70 E/287)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3540/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Disruption of the internal market (in meat) in France

In recent weeks, in response to the difficult situation on the European market, French (pig) farmers have repeatedly taken drastic steps to prevent imports of meat into France from countries such as the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. Lorries transporting meat have been stopped and the meat has then been destroyed and the vehicles damaged. In addition, militant farmers have broken into a number of French meat-processing plants and supermarkets and destroyed their stocks of imported meat.

Since then, the farmers have threatened even more serious protests against the processing and/or purchase of non-French meat, with the result that supply contracts with firms from other European countries have been suspended. Thus far, the French Government is refusing to intervene to deal with this disruption of the internal market. This protection of France's own market and the creation of obstacles to the free movement of goods is posing a serious threat to the operation of the internal market in the (pig)meat sector. In the short term, insurance companies will cover the direct losses, but in the long term the meat-processing industry will lose a market.

Netherlands and other exporters are being forced to avoid making shipments to France. The French pig farmers have thus achieved their objective of effectively halting imports, as a result of which jobs may be lost in the sector in neighbouring countries. In view of the serious damage to the internal market and the threat of further, similar protests, action by the European Commission is essential.

If prompt steps are not taken, there is a risk that meat-producing farmers from neighbouring countries will carry out similar protests against French producers of, for example, wine, champagne and cheese. Many ordinary Europeans may see their Christmas celebrations ruined, hence the need for immediate action.

1. Is the Commission aware of this worrying situation in France?

2. Does the Commission share my view that this behaviour on the part of French farmers and the French Government represents a breach of the principle of the free movement of goods and, by extension, a serious disruption of the internal market? If not, why not?

3. Is the Commission planning to take action to persuade the French Government, which is refusing to step in and deal with these serious obstacles to trade, to abandon its policy of inaction? If so, what measures will it take in the short term? If not, why does it not see a need to intervene?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3487/03 and P-3540/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The problem raised by the Honourable Member was very recently brought to the attention of the Commission by economic operators.

In the absence of details which would allow the Commission to conduct the necessary investigation into the problem raised, the Commission has asked these operators, in a letter of 26 November 2003, for further information in order to identify the dates, locations and exact nature of the alleged obstacles.

This information is essential for the Commission to be able to determine whether or not there is an obstruction to free movement which is forbidden under Article 28 of the EC Treaty. If an obstruction does exist, and is not removed, the Commission will examine the possibility of enforcing Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1). This Regulation aims to apply the principle of the free movement of goods more speedily and more efficiently in order to deal with this kind of obstacle.

This information is essential in order to conduct an analysis of the factual and legal situation. As soon as the Commission has obtained this analysis, it will draw the appropriate conclusions.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.