WRITTEN QUESTION E-1680/99 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition resulting from European Union subsidies.
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, State aid, investment aid, restriction on competition, textile industry

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/73

Will the Commission support a ban on the use of all antibiotics as growth promoters in feedingstuffs?

If so, what measures does the Commission intend to take to enforce such a ban in all the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Council Directive 70/0524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1) governs
both authorisation and withdrawal of authorisation for antibiotics as growth stimulants.

The Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal
of the authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/0524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs (2),
which withdrew authorisation for four antibiotics (virginiamycin,
tylosin phosphate, spiramycin and
bacitracin zinc) as additives in feedingstuffs.

Since these four antibiotics had either been authorised as human medicinal products or demonstrated
cross-resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine, it was decided that they must be reserved for use in
human medicine.

Four other antibiotics (monensin, salinomycin, avilamycin and flavophospholipol) were not included in the
ban, since no substance belonging to this group was being used in veterinary or human medicine at that
time.

Sweden(cid:146)s ban (under the Act of Accession) on using antibiotics as additives expired on 31 December 1998.
In accordance with Article 11 of Directive 70/0524/EEC, on 1 January 1999 Sweden suspended
authorisation for the four antibiotics still on the market. The Commission and Member State representa-
tives on the standing committee on feedingstuffs are currently examining the documents submitted in this
connection.

On 28 May 1999 the Commission(cid:146)s scientific steering committee delivered its opinion on antimicrobial
resistance. The committee issued the following recommendations with regard to antibiotics used as
additives in feedingstuffs: (cid:145)the use of agents from classes which are or may be used in human medicine
should be phased out as soon as possible and ultimately abolished. Efforts should also be made to replace
those antimicrobials promoting growth with no known risk of influencing intestinal bacterial infections by
non-antimicrobial alternatives(cid:146).

Having already taken such action at the end of 1998 in respect of four antibiotics, the Commission is
currently examining the case of a fifth. It is also looking at how best to phase out the remaining antibiotics
over the longer term and replace them with non-microbial alternatives.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.
(2) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998.

(2000/C 170 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1680/99

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from European Union subsidies

Does the Commission agree that there is overcapacity in Germany in the field of collecting and sorting old
clothes?

Is the Commission aware that SOEX Textil-Vermarktungsgesellschaft mbH in Bad Oldesloe has been
granted assistance for setting up a company in Saxony-Anhalt, although the business in question is the
European market leader in this sector?

C 170 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

The collecting and sorting of old clothes is affected by overcapacity in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Assistance for the market leader in this sector is likely to lead to predatory practices. It also gives rise to
the possibility that the market leader could take a dominant market position.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

At the end of 1998 the Commission(cid:146)s attention was drawn to possible unlawful state aid in the context of
the construction of a plant for the recycling of textiles which was carried out by the SOEX group in the
Bitterfeld industrial park in Sachsen-Anhalt. Accordingly, the Commission wrote to the German authorities
and requested information on whether the firm had received state aid in favour of its investment and if so,
what amount and on which legal basis.

The German authorities replied by letter of 16 November 1998 and confirmed that the firm had invested
DM 76,037 million creating employment for 417 people, and had received state aid. By decision of the
Land Sachsen- Anhalt of 7 November 1996, the firm was awarded an investment grant consisting of both
national and Community funds totalling DM 23,419 million. The aid share related to the overall
investment thus amounted to 32,48 %.

The German authorities pointed out that the investment aid was awarded in full respect of the provisions
contained in the 25th framework plan of the (cid:145)Gemeinschaftsaufgabe regionale Wirtschaftsstruktur(cid:146) which is
the relevant regional aid scheme for Germany notified to and approved by the Commission. Therefore, an
individual notification was not necessary. The scheme even authorised aid for new investment up to 35 %
of the overall investment cost. In addition, the project was approved by the Commission on 11 April 1997
for co-financing by the Commission under the European regional development fund (ERDF)
in the
framework of the operational programme of the Land Sachsen- Anhalt 1994-1999.

The Commission examined the German authorities(cid:146) information and concluded that, on the basis of the
information available, there was no breach of the Community rules on state aid. The aid was granted on
the basis of an approved aid scheme concerning new investment in a depressed area. The aid ceilings
permitted by that scheme were respected.

In this context, it has to be pointed out that the Commission, in the past, did not generally examine
individual state aid for new investment projects in depressed areas. Consequently, it neither could assess
the impact of the new investment on the capacities in the respective industrial sector. An exemption
existed only for the so-called sensitive sectors such as shipbuilding, car and synthetic fibres industry for
which there are specific rules regarding the control of state aid. However, a change occurred with the new
multisectoral regional framework for large investment projects which entered into force on 1 September
1998. Following the rules of this framework, state aid in favour of large investment projects has to be
notified individually if certain thresholds in investment sums or state aid payments are exceeded. In the
framework of the individual assessment, the Commission now is in a better position to investigate the
impact of an investment on the capacities within the relevant product market and to take this impact into
account when determining the maximum allowed aid intensity.

(2000/C 170 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1682/99

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Strengthening European policy on civil defence

In view of the tragic outcome of the recent earthquakes in Greece which demonstrated the need for a
strong European policy for dealing with disasters (civil protection), and as the Commission Directorate-
General concerned, DG XI, has given low priority to this policy.