WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission. BSE in France.
Date: 2000-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, food safety, report, veterinary inspection

C 330 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0443/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia

1. What towns in Yugoslavia receive oil from the EU?

2. What criteria are applied?

3. Why is the town of Pancevo not included?

4.

Can the Council answer these questions a little more promptly than usual on account of the winter?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Council

invited the Commission at its meeting on 24 January to extend the (cid:145)Energy for
1.
Democracy(cid:146)
initiative, as suggested by the Serbian opposition forces after the Berlin trilateral meeting
with the EU and the US of 17 December 1999. The final decision on which communities should benefit
was left to the Commission, being responsible for the implementation of the budget. On the basis of a
proposal by the Commission, a decision was adopted by the Council to amend the Common Position
1999/691/CFSP on support to democratic forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), authorising
the supply, sale or export of petroleum and petroleum products to the Serbian municipalities of Sombor,
Subotica, Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Novi Sad.

2.
The choice of municipalities was based on the priority list tabled by the Serbian opposition forces
themselves. Particular attention was given to the municipalities which have a great number of socially
vulnerable persons, as well as social institutions of regional character.

3.

Pancevo was not among the priority municipalities indicated by the Serbian opposition.

4.
The Council reiterates its readiness to continue supporting Serbian people in need and recalls that
humanitarian assistance already provided by the Community for 1999, amounted to € 72,1 million for
Serbia alone, while member States contributed with almost the same amount.

(2000/C 330 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: BSE in France

In view of the findings of the Commission(cid:146)s veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO 1058/99) will the
Commission undertake a follow-up investigation into current practices there,
ineffective
examination of BSE suspect cases, (b) re-admission of suspect cases and fallen stock into the human food
chain, (c) levels of contamination of cattle feed by meat and bone meal, and will he place on record
correspondence with the French Ministry of Agriculture subsequent to Mr Bernard Vallat(cid:146)s letter of
24 November 1999?

including (a)

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/161

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The mission report, together with the comments of the French authorities on the draft report, have already
been published on the Internet.

The Commission(cid:146)s standard procedure for follow-up to veterinary mission findings is to give the Member
State the opportunity to provide details of the action taken and planned in relation to the recommenda-
tions contained in the mission report. In the case of the veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO/1058/
1999) the Commission has requested a reply from the French authorities. The Commission will take
whatever follow-up action is necessary, in the light of this reply.

Follow-up action will apply to all deficiencies observed, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
monitoring, readmission of suspect cases into the food chain and implementation of the meat and bone
meal (MBM) ban. The mission team found that fallen stock (i.e. animals which died on the farm) are
excluded from BSE surveillance, but it found no evidence that fallen stock enters the human food chain in
France.

(2000/C 330 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0449/00

by Harlem DØsir (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Political situation in Austria and amendment of the Treaties

As was pointed out by Commission President Romano Prodi in his statement to Parliament on 2 February
2000, the Treaties as they stand make no provision for the departure (cid:129) voluntary or otherwise (cid:129) of a
Member State of the Union even in the event of serious and repeated infringements of the founding
principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

On the eve of the Union(cid:146)s enlargement and at a time when an extreme right-wing party has joined the
government of a Member State thus prompting the Portuguese Presidency and the heads of state or
government of the 14 other countries to suspend their bilateral relations with that country, should not this
question be placed on the agenda for the next IGC? Indeed, would it not be appropriate to envisage an
amendment to the Treaties to include a clause providing for suspension or expulsion in the event of a
country infringing the European Union(cid:146)s founding values and principles of freedom, democracy and
respect for human rights?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

Pursuant

to Article 48 of

the
the Treaty on European Union,
1.
representatives of the governments of the Member States, and not for the Council, to determine by
common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

is for the Conference of

it

2.
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as far as the present Intergovernmental
Conference is concerned, provision has been made for two observers from the European Parliament to
attend meetings of the representatives of the governments of the Member States and intervene to express
the European Parliament(cid:146)s view on all matters discussed.