WRITTEN QUESTION E-0814/00 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) and Xaver Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transhumance of cattle.
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Bavaria, EU competence, cattle, competence of the Member States, derogation from EU law, traceability

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/49

The Auvergne region, like the other regions of metropolitan France, will continue to be partially eligible
under the new Objective 2 of the Structural Funds during the period 2000-2006. The French authorities
announced that they would submit the draft single programming documents no later than the end of April.
If that date is respected, expenditure before 1 January 2000 will be eligible retrospectively.

For example, the Objective 2 programmes will be able to finance the reconstitution of production
infrastructure and equipment and the restoration of historic sites, if these measures are selected by the
regional partnership. The same arrangements may also apply in areas receiving transitional support
because they are no longer eligible for Community funds in the new period although they received them
previously.

The Life Regulation, which is being revised, contains no provision for granting emergency aid other than
its usual procedure of calls for projects. However, it is possible that certain projects under Life-Nature
could be redesigned to take account of the damage caused to sites or species of Community interest,
insofar as this complies with the objectives of the projects.

tax aid for the forestry sector, which the French Government

National
intends to notify to the
Commission, will be examined under Article 87 (formerly Article 92) (2)(b) of the EC Treaty, which
permits the Member States to provide aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. To
qualify, the link between damage and the aid has to be established clearly and the aid may cover only the
damage caused. The Commission has undertaken to examine the French requests as soon as possible in
order to take account of the emergency to which they relate.

3.
The application by France of a reduced rate of VAT to certain forestry operations does not result
from an exemption from the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (2). It is the result of an exchange of letters
between the French authorities and the Commission, following which the Commission stated that this
Directive, and in particular the combined application of Article 12(3)(a) and Category 10 of Annex H, does
not prevent application of a reduced rate to certain forestry operations, provided that the conditions laid
down in the Directive are observed. Accordingly, no time limit was placed on the operation of this
arrangement.

In addition to these specific answers, the Commission has sought to launch a broad debate on the

4.
ability of the Community to provide itself with a genuine capacity for civil protection.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).

(2001/C 46 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0814/00

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) and Xaver Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Transhumance of cattle

(21 March 2000)

The identification and registration of cattle is an essential precondition for ensuring full traceability in
connection with compulsory beef labelling. The practice of transhumance creates a special situation in
Member States with mountainous and alpine regions. Each year in the spring in Austria alone approxi-
mately 300 000 cattle and in Bavaria approximately 54 000 cattle are moved to upland pastures and
remain there for around three months. As a rule, these upland pastures are common grazing land on
which livestock from different holdings is assembled and tended jointly. The keeping of transhumance lists
means that each animal can be allocated to its holding of origin.

Regulation 820/97 (1) establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals makes
no provision for taking into account these specific requirements and simplified arrangements in relation to
the registration of cattle moved to upland pastures for summer grazing.

How does the Commission view the special case of transhumance and the presence of cattle on

1.
upland pastures in relation to registration and/or the transhumance lists that are already kept?

C 46 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The current registration requirements relating to transhumance impose a costly and time-consuming
2.
administrative burden far in excess of what is necessary. Is the Commission prepared to give thought here
to a simplified arrangement inspired by practical considerations?

3.

Can it propose a more practicable and practice-oriented approach?

Is it prepared to leave to the Member States the responsibility for assessing the requirements of a

4.
practice-oriented system of registration?

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

1.
The Austrian authorities have been in contact with the Commission about the problems arising over
entry in the computerised database (required under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of
beef and beef products (1)) of the movements of cattle sent for summer grazing in various upland areas. To
guarantee full operability of the database the Council Regulation clearly requires all cattle movements to be
entered and, in the Commission(cid:146)s opinion rightly, specifies no exemption to this essential rule. Transhu-
mance lists on their own are not therefore a sufficient answer to the problems.

The Commission would not be unfavourable to specific procedural rules for entry of transhumance
2.
movements into national databases. An addition to the second indent of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 820/97 would be required. The matter is under discussion within Parliament and the Council in
connection with their examination of the proposal (2) for a Parliament and Council Regulation establishing
a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and
beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97.

If Parliament and the Council agree on the desirability of the Commission(cid:146)s proposing specific rules

3.
(see above) the Commission will carefully consider what is most suitable.

No. The Commission considers that the matter must be regulated at Community level. Otherwise
information and

4.
divergent arrangements would probably be adopted jeopardising the reliability of
compromising the compulsory beef labelling scheme.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.
(2) COM(1999) 487 final.

(2001/C 46 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act

(21 March 2000)

With regard to the dispute between the EU and the USA over Article 211 of
Appropriation Act of 1998, can the Commission say:

the US Omnibus

(cid:129) whether the TRIPS agreements, with which the Commission claims Article 211 is incompatible,
should be interpreted as authorising the Member States concerned to recognise the extraterritorial
validity of intellectual property rights confiscated without payment of adequate compensation to the
rightful holders;