WRITTEN QUESTION P-3916/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. BSE in Germany.
Date: 2000-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, Germany, Portugal, application of EU law, bovine spongiform encephalopathy

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/185

law in the Member States. It demonstrates how the Commission, with the
Community environmental
assistance of all the main stakeholders, is putting into effect the principal suggestions contained in the
communication, and how all the main actors are contributing to an improved environment.

The Commission also discussed and agreed with the Member States technical guidelines for a better
understanding and implementation of the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on
the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (3).

Furthermore the Commission held a seminar on bathing water on 30 May 2000, where the level of
compliance of the different Member States with the provisions of directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December
1976 on bathing water (4) was brought to the attention of the public and the media at the occasion of the
publication of Commission(cid:146)s Bathing Water report, concerning the 1999 bathing season.

The Commission pursued its policy of ensuring appropriate implementation of Community environmental
law, taking action against non-complying Member States by means of the infringement proceedings set out
in Articles 226 and 228 (ex Articles 169 and 171) of the EC Treaty and 141 and 143 of the Euratom
Treaty, and bringing decisions taken in this context to the attention of the public by means of press
releases.

The Commission also held specific meetings with Member States where suspected or confirmed cases of
non-compliance are discussed (5).

In addition, further seminars on implementation will take place in 2001. Other measures intended to
improve implementation and compliance are being examined.

(1) OJ C 354, 7.12.1999.
(2) COM(96) 500 final.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(5)

In 2000, meetings have been held i.a. with Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(2001/C 174 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3916/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

On 24 November 2000 it became known (reported in the Frankfurter Rundschau, Germany, 25 November
2000) that seven weeks earlier in the Portuguese Azores a bovine animal born in Saxony-Anhalt had
developed BSE. According to information from the Ministry of Agriculture in Portugal, the animal, born
in September 1995, had been brought to the island of Sao Miguel in 1998. The animal was slaughtered on
2 October 2000. Under the European BSE compulsory notification regulation this case should have been
notified immediately to the European and the German authorities.

1. When and by whom was the Commission notified of this case of BSE?

Has this animal, which came from Germany, been assigned to both the Portuguese and the German

2.
BSE statistics?

3. When were the German authorities notified of this case by the Portuguese Government?

C 174 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

In the wake of this case of BSE 2 800 cattle were slaughtered on the Azores. Are requests for
4.
compensation being made to Germany or to those in the agircultural sector who supplied the animal
infected with BSE?

In accordance with the European BSE notification requirement the farmers in the Member State

5.
should have been informed by the authorities. To what extent did this happen in Germany?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
Written Question P-3881/00

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that
question (1).

(1) See page 171.

(2001/C 174 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3919/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Bathing Water Directive

Would the Commission explain how it is that Member States, despite formal complaints to the Commis-
sion, contrary to the requirements of the 76/160/EC (1) Bathing Water Directive, are being permitted to
continue to publicise false (cid:145)passes(cid:146) for bathing waters proven to fail the Directive mandatory standard? I
refer to the United Kingdom, which in 1999 claimed 491 passes to mandatory conformity (91,4 %
compliant) and 45 failures (8,8 % non-compliant) of their 537 designated bathing water resorts, when the
findings conclusively prove only 54 (10 %) to pass, 76 (14,2 %) to fail with the remaining 407 (75,8 %) of
unknown compliance due to dismissal and lack of
four mandatory microbiological
pathogens?

testing for all

Does the Commission agree that issue of such false conformities is a threat to the health of unsuspecting
people innocently entering such polluted waters, and will it take action to ensure factual and responsible
public reporting of bathing water quality by all Member States in the future?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission does not consider issuing such information as the Honourable Member is referring to is a
threat to human health. Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 main objective is to protect
citizens against sewage polluted bathing water. The main indicators for sewage pollution are faecal
indicators, such as faecal coliforms. The results presented in the Commission(cid:146)s annual report are based
on the microbiological parameters, total and faecal coliforms which refer to possible human health risks;
and three physico-chemical parameters (cid:129) or aesthetic parameters, i.e. is the water attractive to go bathing
(cid:129) mineral oils, surface-active substances (detergents) and phenols (residue of chemical industry). Salmo-
nella and enterovirus are not such indicators. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate about the relevance of
these parameters in relation to bathing water quality management. The Commission has therefore asked
the World health organisation (WHO) for its opinion on the issue.