WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2515/97 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. Fact-finding visit to a meat processing plant
Date: 1997-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHMID
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, Rhineland-Palatinate, dissemination of information, information profession, meat processing industry, official language, report, translation, veterinary inspection

C 82/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 3. 98

On 2 July 1997 the Commission wrote to FIFA taking an essentially negative view of Section 1 of that Circular in
relation to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Article 53 of the EEA Agreement) and of Section 2 in relation to Articles
48 and 85 of the EC Treaty.

(98/C 82/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/97

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1997)

Subject: Fact-finding visit to a meat processing plant

On  a  fact-finding  visit  to  a  meat  processing  plant  in  Oberpfalz,  the  visiting  Commission  official  spoke  only
English. Because the owner of the plant had no knowledge of specialized technical English he was unable to
follow the 12-hour (!) inspection.

Is it normal for EU officials on fact-finding visits to meat processing plants in Member States not to speak

1.
the local language? If so, why?

2. Why are interpreters not provided?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable in such cases for plant owners not to be able to understand

3.
what is being said about their plant?

4. Why are the reports following the visit sent only in English?

5.

6.

Does the Commission believe that the owners themselves are responsible for translating the reports?

Is such language discrimination compatible with the European treaties?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 1997)

The Honourable Member presumably refers to the inspection visit to a meat product processing establishment in
Oberpfalz  performed  by  a  Commission  veterinary  inspector  from  the  Office  of  veterinary  and  phytosanitary
inspection and control, in September 1995.

Personnel employed in the Commission are required to have a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the
Community and a satisfactory knowledge of another. Every effort is made to ensure that inspectors who perform
inspection  missions  in  Member  States  have  a  working  knowledge  of  the  language  of  the  Member  State
concerned. However, bearing in mind that there are 11 official languages used in the Community, and that the
number of inspectors working in the Commission veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and control services is
limited,  this  goal  cannot  always  be  achieved.  In  such  circumstances,  it  is  normal  practice  for  interpretation
facilities to be made available through agreement between the Member State and the Commission, so that the
mission can be performed under the best conditions possible.

Missions  undertaken  by  the  Commission(cid:146)s  veterinary  services  are  intended  to  monitor  the  manner  in  which
Member State authorities discharge their responsibilities under the relevant Community legislation. It is usual
therefore for discussions on inspection findings to take place between the officials concerned. However, owners
of  individual  establishments  visited  during  the  course  of  such  missions  are  at  liberty  to  raise  the  findings  in
respect of their own premises with their authorities after the inspection has been completed.

Reports of mission findings are generally written in the language in which the inspector conducted the mission.
This not only serves to ensure that the report accurately reflects the findings of the inspector, but also helps to
minimise any delay in the submission of the report to the Member State authorities. It is for these authorities to
decide on the manner in which owners of individual establishments inspected during the mission are informed of
its findings.