WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/01 by Astrid Thors (ELDR), Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Fur animals in the Netherlands.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, United Kingdom, free movement of goods, fur-bearing animal, hides and furskins industry, livestock farming, marketing restriction, national law

C 261 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The payment of the first instalment of the financial compensation due under the 2000/2002

1.
protocol to the Community/Angola Agreement should have taken place by 30 November 2000.

The negotiations, which started in January 2000, were only concluded in July 2000, after a third round.
The Commission informed the Angolan authorities, during the July round, that it would be difficult to
make any payment before 31 January 2001, but Angola insisted on mentioning in the protocol the
deadline of 30 November 2000 for the payment of the financial compensation.

As regards the satellite system, the Community is not at fault. The data which constitute the corner stone
of that system (co-ordinates for the Angolan Exclusive Economical Zone (EEZ) and contacts for the
Angolan Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC)) and without which it is impossible for it to work, had been
repeatedly requested from the Angolan authorities since July 2000, but were only received at the end of
January 2001, and in a format that does not allow for its direct application. Following their receipt, new
contacts have already been launched in order to obtain the information needed for the launch of the
system.

Despite the Commission(cid:146)s best efforts, the delay in the payment could not be avoided, and everything
2.
has been done with a view to guaranteeing the smoothest possible development of the longstanding
relations between the Community and Angola in the field of fisheries.

Although at the end of January 2001 Angola signalled to the Commission its readiness to suspend

3.
the protocol, that suspension never took place.

(2001/C 261 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR), Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR)
and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Fur animals in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware of the recent decision taken by the Netherlands Government to ban the
1.
husbandry of fur animals in the Netherlands after a period of 10 years, without any compensation for the
fur producers?

Is it true, as the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture stated on 26 January 2001, that the European
2.
Commission has indicated that Member States have the right to determine such bans individually and that
the Commission has approved a precedent in the United Kingdom?

If the answers to the two preceding questions are in the affirmative, could the Commission indicate

3.
which articles of the European treaties allow Member States to take such measures?

4.
Does the Commission share the view that, where Member States determine such measures autono-
mously on the basis of ethical considerations, this would release those Member States from the obligation
to compensate the producers?

5. Would the Commission accept trade in fur products of EU or third-country origin being prohibited
in the Netherlands?

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/111

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

The Netherlands have notified the Commission under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and the
1.
Council, of 22 June 1998, on technical standards and regulations (1) of a draft law under which the rearing
of fur animals would be banned after a transitional period of 10 years (notification 2001/64/NL). The
Commission is currently examining the draft law in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive
98/34/EC.

2. and 3.
The United Kingdom notified a draft law prohibiting the breeding or keeping of animals solely
or primarily for the value of their fur to the Commission in 1999. As to its position in this respect, the
Commission would like to draw the Honourable Members(cid:146) attention to its answer to written question
E-1512/00 by Mrs Kauppi (2).

4.
In the case where a national measure does not infringe Community law, the question of compensa-
tion for damages caused by the said measure must be assessed within the framework of national law,
taking account also of the need to respect Community provisions on state aids.

5.
A prohibition of trade in fur products in one Member State would of course have to be regarded as
an obstacle to intra-Community trade. The legality of such a measure with regard to the rules of the EC
Treaty concerning free movement of goods would however depend on several
factors such as the
justifications for the measure invoked by national authorities. As far as the Commission is aware, no
Member State plans to enact any such measure. The question as to the Commission(cid:146)s position in this
respect is therefore entirely hypothetical.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.

(2001/C 261 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0415/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Food safety and the WTO

Is it the Commission(cid:146)s view that consumer safety standards are the same for meat and meat products
imported from third countries as for products produced in the EU?

How will the Commission ensure that the same standards are applied to imported products as to products
produced in the EU and are such standards consistent in that case with WTO rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The basic Community health requirements for the production of meat and meat products also apply to
imports from third countries. The Community rules include provisions on the enforcement of
the
requirements, such as certification, inspection and border post control. The general principle that is always
upheld for importation from third countries is that the standards of hygiene and of residue monitoring in
the third countries must be at least equivalent to those laid down for producers in the single market. The
principle for the approval of imports of meat and meat products into the Community is the assurance
from the third country(cid:146)s authorities that the products meet our import standards. Imports are allowed on
the basis of a list of third countries approved for exports to the Community, agreed provisions on
certification, and lists of establishments approved for exports to the Community. As an integral part of this
system,
inspection missions to exporting
countries to verify that the Community level of protection is met.

the Commission(cid:146)s Food and Veterinary Office carries out