WRITTEN QUESTION P-2498/99 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compensation for the compulsory slaughter of salmon in accordance with EC law.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fish disease, sea fish, slaughter premium

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/69

In the field of social security within the meaning of Article 42 (ex Article 51) of the EC Treaty, the rules
on the coordination of the national social security systems are set out in Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
employed persons and to members of their family moving within the Community (1) and its implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (2). Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 contains precise rules on
the situation that arises when a person insured in one Member State visits another Member State with the
express purpose of obtaining (cid:145)planned(cid:146) medical treatment and medical products and provides that the
person concerned must obtain a prior authorisation from the sickness fund under which he is insured with
a view to reimbursement of all the costs incurred. This authorisation is attested by Form E 112. In this
case Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 provides that this authorisation (cid:145)may not be refused where
the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on
whose territory the person concerned resided and where he cannot be given such treatment within the
time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question in the Member State of residence taking
account of his current state of health and the probable course of the disease.(cid:146) Hence, under this rule, the
authorisation system concerned requires Member States to issue the authorisation in precise cases, while
leaving them completely free to choose in other cases. Besides, pursuant to these Community rules,
(cid:145)planned(cid:146) treatment is always given by the institution at the place of stay (cid:145)provided for by the legislation(cid:146)
applied by that institution and the costs are borne by the Member State.

As regards the freedoms of the internal market, and in particular the free movement of goods provided for
in Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty and the freedom to provide services provided for in Article
49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice has adjudicated in the context of two joined
preliminary rulings (Kohll and Decker, C-158/96 and C-120/95), dated 28 April 1998. The Court found
that national rules in the field of social security may not override the freedoms of the internal market and
ruled that the prior authorisation requirement for the reimbursement of spectacles and dental treatment
infringes Community law (guaranteeing the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services)
whenever no authorisation is required in internal situations. There exists a right to equal treatment without
a distinction being made between an internal and a cross-border situation. As opposed to Article 22 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, equal treatment allows the Member State in which the person is insured to
maintain all
to
reimbursement if the Member State of insurance does not enshrine such a right within its own jurisdiction
nor a right to reimbursement of all the costs incurred in connection with medical treatment. On the other
hand, permission for treatment by social security institutions cannot be refused simply because there is a
cross-border situation. However, the Court has recognised the possibility of issuing a refusal on grounds of
public health within the meaning of Articles 30 (ex Article 36) and 46 (ex Article 56) of the EC Treaty, in
so far as the maintenance of a treatment facility or medical services on national territory is essential for
public health and even the survival of the population of the Member State concerned. Likewise, the Court
has allowed restrictions when there is a risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social
security system but not as proven by the Member State of insurance.

the restrictions to its rules; hence equal

includes neither a direct right

treatment

Hence, given the Community rules pertaining to the internal market and social security, Community law
does not currently entitle the Community to take measures affecting the funding of medical or hospital
treatment in the Member States. Funding is a matter for the Member States. Hence, it is not possible to
create specific funds in this context.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

(2000/C 303 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2498/99

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Compensation for the compulsory slaughter of salmon in accordance with EC law

Can the Commission confirm that a scheme exists to provide for prompt, adequate and effective
compensation for the compulsory slaughter of salmon in farms infected with ISA, in accordance with
Directive 93/53/EEC (1)
introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish
diseases?

C 303 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

If so, could it outline this scheme and indicate whether it must be matched with compensation payable by
the relevant Member State?

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Various financial compensation instruments are available in case of compulsory slaughter of salmon in
farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA).

Member States may grant financial compensation for the losses suffered. In that event, the authorities of
the Member State concerned notify the draft measures to the Commission. According to the guidelines for
the examination of state aid to fisheries and aquaculture, measures aimed at compensating losses suffered
by the producers may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that an eradication plan
is decided by the authorities.

Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1) lists, in its Article
3, the animal diseases for which emergency financial compensation by the Community may be granted.
The financial contribution must be 50 % of the costs incurred by the Member State in compensating
owners for the slaughter, destruction of animals and, where appropriate, their products, for cleaning,
disinsectisation and disinfection of holdings and equipment and for the destruction of contaminated
feedingstuffs and contaminated equipment. Where vaccination has been decided, this must be 100 % of the
costs of supply of vaccine and 50 % of the costs incurred for carrying out the vaccination. ISA is however
not included in the list of diseases eligible for compensation. Its inclusion requires a decision by the
Commission in accordance with the procedure of the standing veterinary committee.

Council Decision 90/424/EEC in its Article 24 introduces the possibility for a Community financial
measure for the eradication and monitoring of certain diseases. This compensation is based on the
approval of annual programmes to be submitted by the Member States. These programmes shall supply
all the appropriate financial information and shall indicate in particular the total estimated cost of carrying
out the programme. The level of Community financial contribution in this case shall be fixed at 50 % of
the costs incurred by the Member States by way of compensation for owners for the slaughter of the
animals. ISA is however not included in the list of diseases to which Article 24 applies. Its inclusion
requires a Council decision upon a proposal from the Commission. The Commission will examine whether
it is appropriate to take action for the inclusion of ISA in one of the lists referred to in Decision 90/424/
EEC.

With effect from 1 January 2000 under Article 15 of the new Financial instrument for fisheries guidance
(FIFG), Member States may within their national programmes encourage the eradication of pathological
risks due to diseases in aquaculture. The conditions allow for a maximum financial contribution of 35 %
for Objective 1 areas and 15 % for other areas. In drawing up the implementing regulation for the new
FIFG next year detailed rules for this aid will be decided by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, as last amended by Decision 94/370/EC (OJ L 168, 2.7.1994).

(2000/C 303 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2506/99

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Permitted levels of aflatoxin fungus in brazil nuts imported into the EU

Could the Commission state:

1.

the source of the scientific research behind its decision to allow a maximum level of aflatoxin fungus
in brazil nuts at 4 parts per billion (ppb), when the US level is 20 ppb?