WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Impact of the rules governing livestock farms on the swallow population.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural building, application of EU law, environmental impact, protection of animal life

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/185

(2001/C 103 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: VAT on toll charges

Will the Commission confirm that, in the event of the European Court of Justice endorsing the opinion of
the Advocate General, VAT will be applicable to charges levied by both public and private sector operators
of bridges and tunnels in the United Kingdom and will also be applicable to toll charges levied for the use
of roads and motorways throughout the European Union?

What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the total value of toll charges currently being levied across the EU
without payment of VAT?

Is it the case that any requirement on road users to pay VAT would be lifted should national or local
governments decide not to levy toll charges for the use of roads, bridges or tunnels within their
ownership?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

According to the Court of Justice(cid:146)s judgments of 12 September in Cases C-276/97, C-358/97, C-359/97,
C-408/97 and C-260/98, the operation of toll roads, tunnels or bridges constitutes a provision of services
within the scope of the tax and is therefore taxable.

If, however, an activity is exercised by a public-law body and forms part of its statutory obligations, that
body is not considered a taxable person. Where these two conditions are fulfilled, no VAT is due on the
tolls levied.

Since collecting VAT is a matter for the Member States, the Commission does not yet have firm figures on
the total value of tolls on which VAT is, mistakenly, not being collected.

A service is subject to VAT if it is supplied for consideration and there is a direct link between the service
provided and the payment received. In contrast, no VAT is due on the use of a road, bridge or tunnel free
of charge.

(2001/C 103 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Impact of the rules governing livestock farms on the swallow population

In Finland the swallow population is falling as a result of structural change in rural areas and the decline of
livestock farming. Swallows, which nest almost exclusively on buildings, have lost a large proportion of
their nesting places. In addition to this, the rapid increase in the number of magpies has further reduced
the swallow population, since magpies feed on swallow eggs and fledglings.

Moreover, the magazine (cid:145)Suomen Luonto(cid:146) (Finnish Nature) has reported that the situation is getting worse,
since the Community rules on cattle barns might deprive swallows of nesting places. According to the
magazine, the Community has adopted rules which serve to prevent birds nesting on livestock farms. The
in particular
restriction can probably be traced back to fears that the birds might spread diseases,
salmonella, to livestock farms.

Can the Commission state which rules governing livestock farms might have the impact outlined above? If
such rules exist, has consideration been given to the implications of the additional restrictions imposed on
livestock farms for swallows and their nesting places? What steps does the Commission plan to take in

C 103 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

order to protect swallows(cid:146) nesting places? Moreover, has the impact of the decline in the swallow
population on Finnish folklore concerning the summer been taken into account? The Finns believe that
swallows bring the summer, so that their non-appearance is a serious disappointment to Finns who have
been waiting nine months for summer to arrive. Is the Commission aware of the symbolic significance of
swallows for the Finnish people and Finnish culture? Is there any way of taking proper account of this
significance in Community decision-making?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Annex to Commission Directive 89/362/EEC of 26 May 1989 on general conditions of hygiene in
milk production holdings (1) lays down the hygiene rules for milking, in the form of a code of hygiene.

During discussions with experts in the Member States when the code was being drawn up, the presence of
birds of all species (cid:129) not only swallows (cid:129) was mentioned as a possible source of contamination. Two
types of risk were identified at that time: contamination of milk during milking or storage by salmonella
from bird excreta, or contamination of cows by the mycobacterium, the agent responsible for avian
tuberculosis.

The group of experts concluded that
the risk of milk becoming contaminated by salmonella was
considerably higher via the cows(cid:146) own excreta than via that of birds. This is why the animals must be
kept clean and their udders must be washed before milking commences.

With regard to avian tuberculosis, the hypothesis that certain livestock could be recontaminated after
bovine tuberculosis had effectively been eradicated was accepted. However, only poultry were implicated.
This is why the code of hygiene in the Annex to Directive 89/362/EEC states that pigs and poultry must
not be housed in a shed or premises where cows are milked.

The code also lays down, as a basic hygiene measure in premises where cows are milked, or where milk is
handled or stored, that flies, rodents and other vermin must be controlled.

Regarding swallows as poultry or vermin would be a misinterpretation of the hygiene regulations.
Moreover, these regulations apply only to premises where cows are milked or where milk or dairy
products are handled or stored, not to premises where animals are merely housed. In other words, these
provisions do not apply to cattle barns or to swallows.

(1) OJ L 156, 8.6.1989.

(2001/C 103 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Serbian monasteries in Kosovo

In the sector of Kosovo under the control of
Italian troops there are 22 orthodox churches and
monasteries, where at the time of their expulsion the Serb community gathered together all the documents
certifying ownership of houses, land, woodland and firms,

Is the Council aware that the Albanians used dynamite to blow up churches and monasteries in order

1.
to destroy the documents certifying Serbian ownership of property?