WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Austria's obligation to pay back 800 000 in agricultural aid.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EAGGF, EU aid, aid to agriculture, closing of accounts, common agricultural policy, live animal, redemption, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/61

(2001/C 136 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Austria(cid:146)s obligation to pay back € 800 000 in agricultural aid

On Wednesday, 5 July 2000, the Commission announced that Austria must pay back to the European
Union € 800 000 in agricultural aid. The reason given for this measure was the failure to impose penalties
in 1996 following shortcomings in the tagging of male bovine animals. According to the Commission,
Agrarmarkt Austria had been negligent in carrying out checks. Only 40 % of the ear-tags issued had been
recorded in the database.

How did the Commission obtain this data? Did Commission officials themselves carry out spot checks, or
was the data compiled by national agencies?

What shortcomings did these checks bring to light? What form did the breach of Community rules take?

Were shortcomings discovered in the tagging of other animals?

If so, was Community aid paid back in those cases as well?

Which other Member States are being required to pay back aid as a result of shortcomings in the tagging
of animals? How much is each Member State being required to pay back and on what grounds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

In order to ensure that expenditure declared by the Member States has been made in compliance with the
applicable legislation, the Commission carries out on the spot enquiries. These visits are conducted by
Commission officials in all Member States according to a risk based plan.

The financial correction is based on evidence gathered during one of these visits and is complemented by
information supplied by the Member State following specific questions raised by the Commission officials.

The on-the-spot enquiries in relation to the bovine premia in Austria revealed the absence of formalised
risk analysis, inadequate control and late administrative control procedures. The main problem concerned
the failure to apply legislative sanctions in respect of inadequate identification and registration (I&R) of
male bovines. These deficiencies constitute non-compliance with the requirements set out in Articles 6(4),
6(1) and 10 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (1),
and Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of
animals (2) as applicable for marketing years 1995 and 1996.

The non-compliance with I&R requirements was also established for female bovines. However, taking into
account the lower financial risk this weakness represented to the Fund, no correction was proposed.

The non-compliance with I&R requirements is no reason in itself to apply financial corrections to
expenditure declared under the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF). Corrections
are proposed when Member States do not implement appropriate control systems or fail to apply
regulatory sanctions, if inspectors establish on the spot that I&R requirements are not complied with, or
if inspectors do not sufficiently check that I&R-requirements are met.

The clearance of accounts procedure under Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (3) (repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of
17 May 1999 (4) as from 1 January 2000) foresees this type of clearance decision on an ongoing basis.
Financial corrections decided by the Commission and the Member States concerned are diverse and

C 136 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

numerous. However, the amounts of corrections made to expenditure declared by Member States and the
reasons for each correction, are indicated in the different clearance decisions published in the Official
journal, and are covered in more detail in a summary report accompanying each decision.

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.
(2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 136 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/00

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Transport of live animals

The directive on the protection of animals during transport (Directive 91/628/EEC (1) in the amended
version of 1995/29/EC (2))
lays down the current legal framework for the transport of live animals.
Compliance with this directive would make for a sound level of animal protection. Unfortunately, the
directive is often not implemented properly in the Member States, one serious problem being the
inadequate checks on shipments of animals by the competent authorities.

What steps is the Commission taking to foster the implementation of Directive 91/628/EEC in the Member
States and step up checks on shipments of live animals?

Is the Commission prepared to reduce or discontinue export refunds for live animals?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

While Member States are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation, the Food
and Veterinary Office of the Commission undertakes specific control and inspection missions to check that
Member States apply Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.

These checks have revealed certain shortcomings in the compliance of some Member States with the
Community legislation regarding the protection of animals during transport. As a result infringement
proceedings have been opened against certain Member States and others are under evaluation.

The Commission will present to the Council and to the Parliament, before the end of the year, a report on
the implementation in the Member States of Community legislation on the protection of animals during
transport to the Council and to the Parliament.

Following the conclusion of this report the Commission intends to present proposals to improve the
transport of animals.

Export of live animals is an important outlet for the Community beef market and cannot really be
substituted by the export of beef meat due to the different slaughtering rites, the lack of coldstores in
importing countries or the specific demand for fresh meat of the quality required in these countries.
Additionally the export of breeding animals is a substantial part of the overall export of live animals and
cannot be replaced either. If the export of live animals from the Community were to become impossible
by phasing out export refunds, other suppliers would take over these markets. Australia, for example,
increasingly exports live animals to the Arab world with a journey considerably longer than from the
Community.