WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3933/97 by Sören WIBE to the Commission. Incorrect veterinary certificates
Date: 1997-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, WIBE
Subjects: France, Sweden, animal disease, health certificate, health control, import (EU), meat, public health, veterinary legislation

16. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187/95

(98/C 187/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3933/97

by So¤ren Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 1997)

Subject: Incorrect veterinary certificates

The Swedish National Food Administration has analysed 569 consignments of meat imported from EU Member
States, 75% of which were covered by veterinary certificates stating the meat to be salmonella-free. Samples
were taken from 57 of the consignments covered by veterinary certificates, and twelve of them were found to be
infected with salmonella, including seven out of the eight sampled consignments from France.

It is a minimum requirement that veterinary certificates issued in a Member State should be correct. In a debate
on 19 November 1997, the Council asked the Commission for action to be taken on this matter. Can a Member
State introduce routine checks on consignments of meat from other Member States if serious errors such as those
referred  to  above  are  occurring?  Can  Sweden  take  steps  to  restrict  the  free  movement  of  foodstuffs  so  as  to
protect the Swedish public against infection with salmonella?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1998)

With regard to intra-Community trade in products of animal origin such as fresh meat, checks at origin, checks
on arrival at destination and action to be taken if products fail checks are regulated by Directive 89/662/EEC
concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1).

Checks at origin are regulated by Article 3 of the Directive. This article specifies that Member States must ensure
that  only  products  which  have  been  obtained  and  checked  in  accordance  with  Community  rules  for  the
destination in question are intended for trade. In that respect, the requirements laid down for fresh meat deliveries
to Sweden were indeed integrated into Community legislation by the Treaty of Accession.

Checks at destination are regulated by Articles 5 to 8 of the Directive. Article 5(1)(a) sets out the principle that
those checks are to be carried out by non-discriminatory spot-check. Article 7(1)(b) sets out what must happen to
products  when  they  do  not  fulfil  the  requirements  set  by  Community  legislation  and  in  particular  requires
authorisation  from  the  Member  State  of  origin  for  their  return.  In  addition,  Article  8  in  this  case  obliges  the
Member State of destination to contact the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch without delay.
If the Member State of destination fears that such measures are inadequate, it must try together with the Member
State of dispatch to find ways and means of remedying the situation, if appropriate by means of an on-the-spot
inspection.  If  the  above  measures  fail,  Article  8  states  that  the  Member  State  of  destination  must  inform  the
Commission which can then initiate an inquiry.

It is the responsibility of the Swedish authorities to implement the procedures described above. With regard to
the  matter  raised  by  the  Honourable  Member,  namely  the  discovery  in  Sweden  of  carcasses  infected  with
salmonella  despite  guarantees  from  the  consignors  in  the  form  of  special  certificates,  it  is  difficult  for  the
Commission to adopt a final position at the moment since there may be various reasons for this situation, such as
deficiencies  in  checks  at  origin,  contamination  during  transport  and  handling  or  incompatibility  between  the
inspection methods.

Under the conditions of the internal market the Commission believes that it is important to implement the checks
provided for by Community law before the adoption of unilateral measures by a Member State. This rule also
applies to protection against salmonella.

(1)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.