WRITTEN QUESTION E-2838/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Quarantine rules for exported pigs possibly infected with swine fever.
Date: 2000-09-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, United Kingdom, animal plague, import restriction, intra-EU trade, swine, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/105

The levels of health protection set out in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC are determined by
3.
applying a safety factor to the limit values for exposure to radiation. Thus, in keeping with a precautionary
approach, they can encompass the long-term effects about which there may still be some scientific
uncertainty. The Commission will remain especially vigilant, examine all new scientific evidence, and take
any new measures (cid:129) including the revision of the Recommendation before its planned update in 2004 (cid:129)
in consultation with the Scientific Steering Committee.

(1) Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to

electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ L 77, 26.3.1973), as amended.

(2) Council Directive 1999/5/EC of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment

and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999).

(3) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2001/C 136 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2838/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Quarantine rules for exported pigs possibly infected with swine fever

As a result of swine fever in England, in early August the Dutch government imposed a ban on imports of
pigs from England. Because of the long incubation period it is not yet known how many of the imported
pigs are infected. Accordingly, the LTO, the farmers(cid:146) organisation in the Netherlands, has proposed that
imported pigs be kept for four weeks in quarantine before being sent to farms in the Netherlands.

Can the Commission confirm the statement

from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature
1.
Management and Fisheries, that the European Union does not allow the Dutch government to impose a
quarantine obligation on importers?

2. What are the Commission(cid:146)s reasons for preventing quarantine arrangements?

3.
Does the Commission share the view that action must be taken to prevent European rules resulting
in unexpected and undesirable consequences and accordingly being regarded as pointless and harmful by
the public?

4. What does the Commission intend to do to enable Member States of the European Union to
introduce a quarantine scheme for animals suspected of carrying a disease and, in general, to ensure that in
such cases European rules do not have an adverse effect?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

1.
The emergency measures that may be enforced in case of occurrence of an animal disease in the
Community are laid down in Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 20 June 1990, concerning veterinary and
zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view
to the completion of the internal market (1).

The Member State of dispatch as well as the Member State of destination of commodities such as animals
or animal products, which may pose a risk for public or animal health, may take the measures necessary
to prevent any spread of disease, which may include quarantine of the animals, in accordance with the
provisions of this Directive.

C 136 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

However, the safeguard measures taken by the Member States must then be reviewed as soon as possible
by the Commission in the standing veterinary committee (SVC), where all Member States are represented.
In the framework of this committee, the suitability of the measures adopted is evaluated. If deemed
necessary, the Commission may submit to the SVC for its opinion draft decisions including safeguard
measures to be adopted at Community level. However, the Commission may also, under exceptional
circumstances, adopt disease control measures without a prior opinion of the SVC, on condition that these
measures are then reviewed by this committee as soon as possible. Whenever safeguard measures are taken
at Community level, the Member States must adapt their legislation accordingly. Following the outbreak of
classical swine fever (CSF) reported in the United Kingdom on 8 August 2000, the Dutch government
adopted on 10 August a number of disease control measures. Subsequently, the Commission adopted a
number of decisions concerning this outbreak. The Netherlands supported all draft decisions discussed in
the SVC, which included provisions on a ban on moving pigs from the areas of the United Kingdom
considered as CSF infected and some restrictions on movements of pigs from all or a large part of the
United Kingdom to other Member States. These restrictions included a 30 day standstill (quarantine) of all
pigs in the holding of origin before pigs are moved to other Member States.

Therefore, Community legislation did not prevent the Dutch government from taking interim measures to
prevent
the spread of disease in the Netherlands, although once the Commission adopted its own
decisions, the Dutch government had then to conform to these provisions.

2.
As just explained, the Commission has not sought to prevent the adoption of disease control
measures by the Member States. However, one of the objectives of the Commission is to ensure that,
including in case of an emergency, the measures taken by the Member States are in accordance with
Community legislation.

3.
The Community provisions and procedures on the measures that may be taken in an emergency
which poses a risk for public or animal health in relation to intra-Community trade of certain live animals
and products are aimed at providing a legal base for the adoption by the Member State and/or the
Commission of adequate protection measures in the shortest possible delay. These interim measures are
then reviewed as quickly as possible at Community level by a body of experts to ensure a consistent and
technically sound approach, taking also into consideration the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on
trade.

Directive 90/425/EEC has shown itself to be a very effective tool for these purposes. Therefore, the
Commission cannot share the view of the Honourable Member on this matter.

As already explained above, the Member States can adopt quarantine measures to prevent the spread

4.
of animal diseases, in the framework of Directive 90/425/EEC.

The Commission cannot agree with the statement that this Directive has an adverse effect and it does not
intend to review its substance.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2001/C 136 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Increase in (cid:145)open skies(cid:146) agreements between Member States and the US as a result of mergers

between national airlines

1.
Is the Commission aware of the possibility of the threat to merger talks between British Airways and
KLM from the American demand that, if the merger goes ahead, the United States and the United Kingdom
would have to conclude a liberal aviation agreement on the lines of the (cid:145)open skies(cid:146) model which already
exists for the Netherlands (source: De Volkskrant of 10 August 2000)?