WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Impartiality of EU food monitoring.
Date: 2000-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, food safety, game meat, image, import (EU), operation of the Institutions, transparency in decision-making, veterinary inspection

C 330 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

At the highest levels, bobsleighing is generally a professional sport. As a rule, the bobsleighs and other
equipment used are the property of bobsleigh team members or of the clubs to which they belong or of
the national associations sponsoring them.

In Section 1.13.3.2 of its International Rules, the FIBT declares, in breach of the rights of ownership and
personal rights of competing team members, clubs and national associations, that 50 cm2 on each side of a
bobsleigh and the lower third of its cowling, including the surfaces of the front lateral bumpers, is FIBT
property.

The FIBT makes it difficult for top bobsleigh teams, clubs and national associations to find sponsors and so
restricts their freedom to develop economic activity.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the FIBT rules on advertising space on bobsleighs, helmets
and competitors(cid:146) clothing run counter to Community case-law as it is currently evolving with regard to
professional sport?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, the Commission finds it
difficult to give a definitive answer. Full knowledge of the economic and legal facts and of the specific
features of the sport, together with a definition of the market concerned, are needed in order to assess
whether a federation(cid:146)s behaviour is restrictive within the meaning of the competition rules.

In any case, the right to allocate advertising space is a matter for national law. Should the various national
laws grant the International Bobsleighing and Tobagganing Federation (FIBT) the right to decide on the use
it would be necessary to consider whether the behaviour referred to by the
of advertising space,
Honourable Member is the result of an agreement prohibited under Article 81 (former Article 85) of the
EC Treaty or could constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (former
Article 86) of the EC Treaty. The Commission does not have the information to carry out an analysis
which would enable it to determine whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member affects
trade between Member States or whether the FIBT, on the assumption that it acts as an undertaking, holds
a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market.

(2000/C 330 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00

by Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring

(15 February 2000)

Between 11 and 21 October 1998, European Union veterinary inspectors made an inspection visit to the
Kola peninsula in Russia with the aim of ascertaining whether it would be possible to grant permission for
reindeer meat and game to be imported into the EU from that source.

According to the inspection report (XXIV/1472/98), a representative of an enterprise with an interest in
imports of reindeer meat from the Kola peninsula took part in the Commission(cid:146)s inspection mission. The
report states that the enterprise helped to organise the journey and arranged interpreting services for
meetings.

Is it standard practice for representatives of commercial enterprises to participate in EU inspection
missions in third countries? Is it likely to boost consumer confidence in the impartiality of the EU(cid:146)s food
monitoring if parties with commercial interests participate in inspection missions?

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/153

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

As indicated in the report (available on the Europa website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/), to which
the Honourable Members refer, the mission team comprised two vets from the Commission, and one from
the Finnish ministry of Agriculture. Two members of the team were fluent in Russian, which was the
language used during the mission. It proved impossible to obtain official interpretation support for the
third inspector. For these reasons, it was necessary to take exceptional measures, which fell outside normal
food and veterinary office practices, to ensure the successful performance and completion of the mission.

To this end, the assistance of an interpreter for the third inspector, provided through the Swedish-owned
exporting company, was accepted. In addition, the mission programme was finalised with the regional,
rather than the central, official veterinary services, with assistance from the Swedish exporting company. A
director of that company travelled with the team to assist with travel arrangements, but he did not form
part of the team and, as is made clear in the report, did not participate in any of the technical meetings
during the mission. The performance of the mission, and the reporting of its findings, conclusions and
recommendations, were in no way prejudiced by this arrangement. All
travel and accommodation
arrangements were made fully in accordance with Commission rules.

The Commission is very aware of the need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the impartiality of
its inspection and control activities. The findings of the mission, as is evidenced by the publication of the
report, were achieved in a fully transparent and independent manner. They were accepted by the Member
States in the standing veterinary committee on 10th February 1999.

(2000/C 330 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/00

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council

(16 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firms operating on the Danube following the

closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube

A number of firms in Regensburg (Germany) are specialised in transport operations from Germany to
destinations below Yugoslavia on the Danube. As a result of the war in Kosovo,the destruction of bridges
over the Danube, and the subsequent closure of the Yugoslav section of the Danube the business
operations of these firms have come to a halt. Since these firms specialise in vey specific transport
operations on the Danube, they have practically no possibility of branching out into other areas of activity.

Can the Council therefore provide the following information:

1.

Should these firms be regarded as victims of the Kosovo war in the same way as firms situated in
Kosovo itself?

2. Are these firms eligible for financial restructuring aid to offset their losses?

3. Are these companies entitled to non-reimbursable aid for restructuring or consolidation to offset their

ongoing losses and to publicly guaranteed investment aid?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to decide on aid granted by
Member States under the provisions of Articles 87 et seq of the EC Treaty.