WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Vaccination against IBR in the European Union.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, animal disease, dairy cow, epidemic, vaccination

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/191

(2000/C 330 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Quarterly calculation of bank interest payable by account-holders

Does the European Union consider it admissible that up until July 2000, Italy will continue to tolerate
(i.e. consider legal) (cid:145)anatocisms(cid:146), i.e. the quarterly calculation of interest payable by account-holders (be
they private individuals or companies), while the interest payable by banks is calculated on an annual
basis?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

In its reply to Written Question No 0532/00, the Commission pointed out that under Article 4 of the
EC Treaty the Community(cid:146)s economic policy is based on the internal market and is conducted in
accordance with the principles of an open market economy with free competition. Only by adhering to
this principle is it possible to achieve an optimum allocation of economic resources in the interests of both
firms and consumers. In this connection, the Commission observed that, in its view, it was neither possible
nor expedient to intervene regarding the interest rates applied by credit institutions. This also applies to
methods of calculating interest payable; it is up to each credit institution to offer services to clients in the
light of its assessment of the market and the associated risks, and this, of course, in compliance with the
rules on competition and transparency in financial transactions.

(2000/C 330 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Vaccination against IBR in the European Union

Thousands of Dutch farmers are suffering losses on account of an unknown cattle disease ((cid:145)slijters(cid:146)). It is
suspected that
IBR (Infectious Bovine
Rhinotracheitis).

this disease may be caused by a defective vaccine against

1.

Does the Commission have any view about the causes of these phenomena?

Are similar losses occurring elsewhere in the Union and if so, what precautions has the Commission

2.
taken on this account?

Has the Commission instituted a special inquiry or taken any measures with regard to IBR vaccines

3.
in order to prevent a recurrence of the problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Dutch authorities about the disease occurring in dairy cattle
farms in the Netherlands.

These authorities state that in a number of dairy cattle farms emaciation of milking cows has been
reported. Investigations have been carried out to identify the precise causes of this disease. The results of
these investigations suggest that in some farms the symptoms appeared after the use of a vaccine against
infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), which was contaminated with bovine viral diarrhea virus. This is a
well-known virus of ruminants widespread in most countries in the world, for which there is no evidence

C 330 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

or suspicion that it can affect humans. In these farms all animals have been slaughtered and destroyed.
However,
in other farms the presence of infectious agents has not been confirmed and other causes
(deficiency in cobalt and vitamin B12) are probably involved.

Except for a single reported field case in Italy that was suspected to relate to an IBR vaccine, the
Commission is not aware of other possibly similar situations having occurred in the Community.

With regard to the recent Community action related to IBR vaccines, the Commission would like to draw
the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to the written question E-0634/00 by
Mrs Muscardini (1).

(1) See page 194.

(2000/C 330 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region

According to information which I have received, the Commission has decided to suspend investment
incentives to businesses in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region until a final decision is taken on the matter,
which might be as late as June 2001.

This will mean that such businesses will no longer have access to the PEDIP (specific programme for
development of Portuguese industry), Procom (trade) or SIFIT (tourism) programmes.

In view of the economic difficulties which this suspension will cause to the region and neighbouring areas,
will the Commission explain why it has taken such a decision and how and when it intends to unblock the
situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

After the guidelines on national regional aid were adopted (1), the Commission asked the Portuguese
authorities to send it a notification under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)) supplying
a draft map showing, first, the Portuguese regions which it was proposed should qualify for national
regional aid under the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty (formerly Article 92), and,
second, the intensity ceilings for aid for initial investment and aid for job creation linked to investment
envisaged in each of the regions shown, and the ceilings applicable where aid under different schemes is
combined.

The Portuguese authorities
the period 2000-06, and on
8 December 1999 the Commission approved the sections of the map defining the regions in Portugal
qualifying for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a), namely North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve,
Azores and Madeira.

regional aid map for

supplied a draft

But in respect of the only Portuguese region which was to qualify under the exemption in Article 87(3)(c),
namely Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the Commission initiated the procedure of Article 88(2): it took the view
that on the basis of the information available the proposal made by the Portuguese authorities could not
be considered compatible with the guidelines. According to the Portuguese notification the whole of this
region, which accounts for 33,4 % of the population of the country, was to be covered by the transitional
period referred to in point 5.7 of the guidelines, during which the aid intensities which had applied there
until the end of 1999 under Article 87(3)(a) would be adapted. But, given the limitations on the
geographical scope of point 5.7 of the guidelines, which are imposed by footnote 43, only a section of
the region (10,2 % of the population of the country) would qualify for such a transitional period.