WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef.
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canada, United States, beef, common commercial policy, export tax, food safety, foodstuff, import restriction, trade dispute

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/17

4.

Is it always the relevant producer himself who has to pay the superlevy if the quota is exceeded?

Does the Commission have any information to suggest that Italy has paid LIT 3 631 billion in

5.
superlevy from its State budget?

6.

If any measures (infringement proceedings) have been taken, what stage have they reached?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

Community legislation on milk quotas applies to all the Member States. In a number of respects this
1.
legislation permits choices regarding the specific implementing rules so that the Member States can take
account of their specific conditions of production.

2.

3.

Yes.

Yes, but not on a scale which compromises the operation of the arrangement.

Yes, but in the case of deliveries collection is the responsibility of the dairy to which the producer

4.
delivers.

5.
The Commission has collected from Italy the amounts due as a result of the quotas being exceeded.
Following the work of (cid:145)commissione di garanzia quote latte(cid:146) (milk quota guarantee commission) which
examined the reference quantities of all the producers individually and reported in February 1999, in July
the Italian administration undertook to recover those amounts from the debtors. The Commission is
awaiting details of this recovery. However, the settlement of any individual disputes is a matter for the
Italian courts.

6.
An infringement procedure concerning the failure by Italy to make a definitive recovery of the
supplementary levy from producers who exceeded their quotas is still in progress. However, in view of the
developments referred to in the previous paragraph since a reasoned opinion was issued, the Commission
does not consider it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice at this stage. Naturally, it reserves
the right to do so if no satisfactory conclusion is reached soon.

(2000/C 203 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef

The French trade union Coordination paysanne europØenne has organised a number of peaceful demon-
strations outside the French branches of the US firm Macdonald(cid:146)s to protest against the US Administra-
tion(cid:146)s measures, which heavily tax a number of European products because the Union, quite rightly, refuses
to import American beef produced in a way which does not comply with public health requirements in
European Union countries.

Does the Commission not consider that

1.
the symbolic acts by the French trade union (cid:129) the
distribution of products hit by the US measures, such as Roquefort and foie gras, outside the symbol of
the antithesis of European culinary culture (cid:129) Macdonald(cid:146)s (cid:129) are worthy of support?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to oppose the orders of the WTO (cid:129) an organisation
under US control (cid:129) concerning imports of foodstuffs, in this specific case beef treated with substances
harmful to human health?

C 203 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

According to Community law as stated for example in Articles 95(3), 152(1) and 153(1) EC Treaty, the
Community has to ensure for consumers a high level of food quality and safety. Therefore, following the
findings and recommendations of the World trade organisation (WTO) dispute settlement body, the
Commission asked its scientific committee on veterinary matters relating to public health (SCVPH) to
deliver an opinion on the potential for adverse effects to human health from the administration of the six
hormones for animal growth promotion.

At the end of April 1999 the SCVPH delivered its opinion on the assessment of potential risks to human
health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products. Based on this scientific advice the
Commission decided that it could not propose to the Member States to lift the ban.

The United States and Canada initiated WTO procedures to suspend concessions because the period of
time to conform with the WTO findings expired on 13 May 1999. The Community asked for WTO
arbitration on the amount, as a result of which the United States were authorised to suspend concessions
for US$ 116 million, instead of the US$ 202 million they had requested. The Canadian authorisation was
limited to CAN$ 11 million instead of the CAN$ 75 million requested by Canada.

The Commission regrets that the United States and Canada have chosen to impose 100 % duties on a
number of European products, which not only affects the export business of several companies, but also
deprives American consumers of high quality goods produced in Europe.

Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to study the recent scientific data, in order to evaluate on this
basis, and in the light of any new relevant information, the steps which are necessary to be taken in the
light of the Community(cid:146)s WTO rights and obligations.

(2000/C 203 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/99

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: EC-Greenland Agreement

the fact

that, under the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark
In view of
(representing the Greenland Local Government), which serves as a fisheries agreement, there are fishing
possibilities which are not used by the Member States,
is the Commission intending to retain the
agreement as a fisheries agreement, or is a cooperation agreement with Greenland finally being drawn up?

(2000/C 203 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/99

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: EC-Greenland Fisheries Protocol

The Third Fisheries Protocol between the European Community and Denmark and the Greenland Local
Government, which has been in force since 1985, contains two separate components, the first concerned
with an exchange of quotas between the Parties and the acquisition of additional quotas and the second
intended to support the establishment of joint ventures and temporary business associations within
Greenland(cid:146)s fisheries sector.

Can the Commission say what kind of fisheries agreement it intends to negotiate with Greenland, bearing
in mind that both the current Fisheries Agreement and the Third Protocol will expire on 31 December
2000?