WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Export refunds for cattle.
Date: 2000-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, export (EU), export refund, protection of animals, slaughter of animals, transport of animals

C 318 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

by the Member States and approved by the Commission and includes additional controls on feedingstuffs
and drinking water. The yearly reports for 1998 and 1999 have not confirmed a massive abuse of
antibiotics.

Although some actions have been already undertaken such as gathering data on the current consumption
of antibiotics in animal nutrition and the requirement to monitor the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance
in target microbial species from animals fed antimicrobial growth promoters, these actions shall be
considered in a more comprehensive strategy. In this respect a Commission communication outlining
a wider action plan is under preparation and will be presented shortly.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.
(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2001/C 318 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Export refunds for cattle

Is the Commission aware of the often inhumane treatment of cattle exported live to third countries for
slaughter? Is it further aware that this practice would cease if the incentive of export refunds were limited
to the export of meat and not live animals? Will it bring forward proposals to make this change?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

The Commission is aware that breaches of Community legislation in relation to the protection of animals
during transport are still taking place within the territory of the Community. The Commission refers the
Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Written Question E-3765-00by Mrs Maes (1) for more detailed
information.

With regard to the question of the refunds granted on the export of live cattle to third countries, since
1 October 1998, Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 (2) has provided a specific
mechanism to ensure that cattle transport for export toward third countries meets the requirements as
regards the respect of the conditions on animal welfare during transport as applicable in the Community.
This measure has created the legal basis for refusing the aid if during the transport up to the first place of
unloading in the country of destination the conditions of Council Directive 91/628/EC of 19 November
1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/
EEC (3) are not satisfied. The Commission is in the process of verifying the implementation by the Member
States of these rules.

On the question of trade in live cattle being influenced by the existence of export refunds, the answer can
only be negative. The experiences gained during several crises, and in particular the first major bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis in 1996, show that importing countries immediately redirected
their purchases of cattle towards other countries, mostly outside the Community.

The Community has no power to interfere in choices made by third countries to slaughter cattle within
their own slaughtering facilities. It is however worthwhile to refer also to the conclusions adopted by the
Agriculture Council of 20 and 21 November 2000 approving the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for the World
Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on agriculture and by which the Commission takes the firm view
that in international trade, animal welfare should become a matter of interest for all parties involved. The
Community appears at this moment to be one of only a small minority of members within the WTO to
consider this as an objective in the context of the talks on further trade liberalisation.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/11

Finally, it is important to underline that the level of export aid is calculated with great care and limited to
what is strictly necessary. During the last year the refund rates were reduced to two thirds of the level
applicable in 1999. Was it not for recent serious developments in the beef sector that cut could even have
been greater.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 137.
(2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
(3) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2001/C 318 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: French tax law restricting Community insurers(cid:146) freedom to provide services

The French legislator has adopted what may be described as discriminatory tax rates in the case of
redemption of a life assurance policy by French residents wishing to benefit
from the freedom of
Community insurers to provide services.

The effect of Articles 125 OA as amended (Article 21 of the French 1998 finance act) and 125 A of the
French general code of taxation is to exclude policy holders who have taken out a policy under the
freedom to provide services from the benefit of the (cid:145)prØlŁvement libØratoire(cid:146) (release tax) rates. The rate is
35 % for a contract period of less than four years, 15 % for a contract period of between four and eight
years, and 7,5 % for a contract period of eight or more years, with the stipulation that policies must have
been taken out by 26 September 1997 or premiums paid after that date.

French residents who have taken out their life assurance policy under the freedom to provide services
cannot benefit from these rates. The profit they realise when redeeming their policy is subject to taxation
under the sliding scale for income tax, the highest rate of which is 54 %. So taxpayers subject to the
maximum rate of income tax who redeem their life-assurance policy after eight years will pay 7,5 % tax if
they have taken out their policy with an insurer established in France, by opting for the release tax, but
54 % tax if they take out a policy under the freedom to provide services.

This blatant discrimination, to which a number of financial journals and magazines have drawn attention,
severely handicaps the activities of foreign insurers operating in the French market under the freedom to
provide services, and has led to the lodging of complaints with the Commission. In response to the
complaints the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Services expressed its intention of proposing
that the Commission institute proceedings against France under Article 226 of the EC Treaty on the subject
of these discriminatory tax rates. However, more than a year after the first complaints reached the
Commission it has still not responded.

Could the Commission say what action it intends to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

French legislation has been found to exclude income from the release tax rate under Articles 125(A) and
125(0A) of the French general code of taxation which is subject to income tax if the payer is not resident
or based in France. Income from such investments or policies taken out with companies or individuals
based outside France is always subject to the aggregation of taxable income and, as a result, to a rate of
taxation which is generally higher, or in any case can be higher. The legislation therefore appears to give
rise to discrimination against services from finance and insurance companies based outside France.