WRITTEN QUESTION E-0455/00 by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Health inspection fees for meat ‐ Directive 85/73/EEC.
Date: 2000-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, directive (EU), health control, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), local authority, meat, quasi-fiscal charge

C 330 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0455/00

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Health inspection fees for meat (cid:129) Directive 85/73/EEC

Application of Directives 85/73/EEC (1) and 64/433/EEC (2),
in conjunction with the ECJ judgment of
9 September 1999, is causing major problems in Germany with regard to competition law owing to the
ambiguities and contradictions contained in those legal bases, and this has resulted in a number of court
cases.

The Commission is requested to answer the following questions in order to provide legal certainty on this
issue:

1.

Pursuant to the ECJ decision of 9 September 1999, the authorisation granted in Chapter I(4)(b) of the
Annex to Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118 (3), to collect a special fee which is higher
than the standard amounts laid down in Chapter I(1) may be used unconditionally, but subject to the
general proviso that the special fee does not exceed the actual costs. In the light of this, will the
Commission explain:

(cid:129) whether the decision applies also to the wording of Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A to Directive

85/73, as amended by Directive 96/43 (4)?

(cid:129) whether the basis for assessing the level of fee that covers actual costs is to be determined by the

competent authority at its discretion, and what is meant by (cid:145)actual costs(cid:146)?

(cid:129) whether a (cid:145)fee(cid:146) within the meaning of Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended
by Directive 96/43, means an average fee calculated on the basis of costs country-wide, that is to
say across the territory of the competent authority?

(cid:129) whether, pursuant to Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A, it is possible to levy fees that are differentiated

according to category of business?

(cid:129) whether fees may be levied on the basis of a combination of the provisions of Chapter I(4)(a) and

(b) of Annex A?

2. Do the standard amounts pursuant to Chapter I(1)(b) and (c) of the Annex already include the

proportion of costs attributable to trichinosis testing?

(1) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
(2) OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012.
(3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems, particularly in Germany, of implementing the provisions of
Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of
fresh meat and poultrymeat referred to in Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/
EEC (1).

1.
A priori, the principles of interpretation outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgement of
9 September 1999 (Case C 347/97 (cid:129) Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bayerischen Verwaltungsgericht-
shof: Anton Feyrer v Landkreis Rottal-Inn (cid:129) 1999 C 352/08) are also valid for interpreting Annex A,
Chapter I, point 4 (b) of Directive 85/73/EEC as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43/EEC, in the
sense that (cid:145)in order to cover increased costs, Member States may (cid:133) collect a special fee covering actual
costs(cid:146).

Article 5 (1) of Directive 85/73/EEC lays down that (cid:145)the Community fees shall be set at a level which
covers the costs borne by the competent authority in respect of: (cid:129) salary costs and social-security costs
involved in the inspection service, (cid:129) administrative costs incurred in carrying out controls and inspections,
which may include the expenditure required for in-service training of inspectors(cid:146). Thus on this point the
Directive provides only a general framework. As the Commission has already pointed out in its reply to
written question E-1121/98 (2), estimating actual costs or expenses may be a complex process since it
involves adding together total expenditure (staff costs, social contributions, analysis costs, administrative

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/163

expenses, etc.). Moreover, certain items, such as the costs of constructing or modernising buildings, may be
subject to different accounting processes. It should also be remembered that in the ideal case scenario the
official statement of costs can only be provided at the end of year n+1, year n being the year in which the
veterinary checks and inspections in question are carried out. On this subject, it is clear that the working
documents used to establish standard amounts are for guidance only. Only the text of the Directive is
legally binding.

Paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned judgement of 9 September 1999 by the Court of Justice states that (cid:145)in
cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health
inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118,
authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the
actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority(cid:146). If competence is delegated to local
authorities, these are the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory. In the absence of such
delegation, there is in principle no difference between the costs incurred at national level and the costs
incurred by the authorities in national territory.

With regard to the provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/EEC, the text itself
indicates that differences are possible between establishments. (cid:145)In order to cover increased costs, Member
States may (cid:133) increase the standard amounts of fees as laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) for individual
establishments(cid:146). The provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) do not refer specifically to this
possibility. The relevant concept is that of (cid:145)actual costs(cid:146). It is not made clear whether calculation of these
costs can be for a given establishment or whether it should be done at the level of the competent
authority, which can carry out an equalisation for the establishments for which it is responsible.

The question needs to be clarified. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/
EEC, a Member State may as a general rule, in order to cover increased costs, provide for standard fees and
increase these amounts for certain establishments meeting the conditions referred to. Such a system has its
own internal coherence. The other option referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) for covering
increased costs gives Member States the possibility of charging a special fee covering actual costs. This
option also has its own internal coherence. It is therefore difficult to come up with a combination of these
two systems.

2.
In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, the standard amounts are laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) and
not in points 4 (a) and (b). These amounts cover all the checks laid down by the Directives concerned and,
therefore, the checks relating to the detection of trichinosis.

(1) See the consolidated version in Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Directive
85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal
products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC.

(2) OJ C 402, 6.1.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Catchment area management (cid:129) ESDP

In its recent publication entitled ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam unofficial
council, May 1999) (1) the Commission writes (p. 68) that the proposal for a directive which inter alia
covers integrated catchment area management is currently under negotiation.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the exact title of the proposal, when was it drawn up and by whom?

2. At what stage are the discussions on this proposal for an EU directive?