WRITTEN QUESTION E-0442/01 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission. UK responsibility for dealing with the BSE crisis.
Date: 2001-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, infringement procedure (EU), liability of the State, powers of the institutions (EU)

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/207

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

1. and 2.
The Commission has been reviewing its priorities and the means it has to carry out its work.
In this context, and following the work of the Peer Group as set out in the Communication from the
Commission of 26 July 2000 (cid:145)Matching the Commission(cid:146)s activities with its human resources(cid:146),
it has
decided that it will no longer be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events (1).

The Commission will not prepare a specific programme to financially support Europartenariat-type
3.
events. It will continue its efforts aimed at facilitating co-operation between companies and promoting
internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by other means.

In the context of regional policy, support to SMEs remains an objective eligible for structural funds.

4.
The objective of the Europartenariat evaluation study that is being carried out is to examine the
impact that the programme Europartenariat has had over the 10-12 year period of its existence, and to
suggest improvements to the formula. The decision of the Commission not to continue investing its own
resources in managing this programme does not preclude that the formula developed over the years may
be used by other
interested parties, particularly those that have recognised the benefits of past
programmes. In this context the evaluation will be a useful tool for such interests. The Commission is
ready to make available the management tools it has developed, such as the organisers guide and the
software package, to new organisers.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000.

(2001/C 235 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0442/01

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: UK responsibility for dealing with the BSE crisis

(16 February 2001)

Does the Commission not consider it essential to bring an action before the European Court of Justice to
ensure that the United Kingdom answers for the negligence and misconduct which caused the spread of
BSE?

Such action appears all the more justified following publication of the report by the committee of inquiry
chaired by Lord Philips and in view of the high number of victims who live in Member States other than
the United Kingdom and are not covered by the British compensation scheme.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission can only bring a Member State before the Court of Justice for failure to comply with an
obligation under the EC Treaty if the conditions laid down in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty
are fulfilled.

These conditions are as follows:

1. The Commission has to believe that the Member State has failed to comply with a Community law

obligation;

2. The Member State must firstly be given the opportunity to submit its observations;

3. The Commission should thereafter have delivered a reasoned opinion which the Member State has

failed to comply with.

C 235 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Furthermore, the Commission does not normally open or pursue infringement proceedings in respect of
cases where, following the Commission(cid:146)s initial intervention, the Member State concerned subsequently
complies with its obligations.

The Commission continues to keep the compliance by the United Kingdom with its obligations under
Community law in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) under the closest scrutiny and
would not hesitate to open infringement proceedings if some new or continuing deficiency in relation to
such compliance were to be discovered.

(2001/C 235 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0450/01

by Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Port operations and the provision of temporary port services

Law No 186 of 30 June 2000 governing port operations and the provision of services consisting of
temporary port work, was first brought before the Italian Senate in the form of a text that had already
been agreed with the Italian Minister of Transport and Navigation, Claudio Burlando, and the Commis-
sioner responsible for competition policy, Karel Van Miert. The proposed Law No 3409 amended, among
other things, Article 16 of Law 84/94 and introduced a new definition of (cid:145)port services(cid:146) under which they
must be (cid:145)connected with the carrying out of port operations whether or not they are an intrinsic part of
the cycle of port operations themselves(cid:146).

This formulation covered any activity, whether or not it was included in the cycle of port operations,
which can be carried out on a contract basis by any port enterprise authorised in accordance with Arti-
cle 16.

The rules therefore allowed activities, whether or not they are part of the cycle of port operations, to be
outsourced, as explicitly referred to in paragraph 16 of the Decision of the European Commission of
21 October 1997.

The text adopted by the Italian Senate on 15 July 1999 was forwarded to the European Commission on
28 July 1999.

Commissioner Karel Van Miert, in a letter of 24 August 1999 to the Italian Minister of Transport and
Navigation, expressed serious doubts about the compatibility with Community rules of the Senate(cid:146)s
amendments to the original text of the proposed Law No 3409.

the European Commission stressed the fact

In particular,
(cid:145)port services(cid:146)
considerably narrowed the original definition thereby preventing authorised port enterprises from provid-
ing, on a contract basis, services consisting of the performance of one or more operations relating to the
operating cycle of the terminal enterprise.

the new definition of

that

Despite these reservations, the text of Law No 3409 was adopted definitively without amendments by the
Italian Chamber of Deputies on 30 May 2000.

In view of the above, and of the foregoing legal considerations, can the Commission say whether it
considers it appropriate for it to deliver a negative opinion on the substance of the draft regulation in
in
question, which the Italian Government has recently submitted to the Commission for evaluation,
relation to the section which states that port services consist of (cid:145)activities separate from those that form
part of the cycle of port operations(cid:146). These rules would prevent a port enterprise from contracting out one
or more port operations that are part of its operating cycle, thereby restricting such contracts to the
monopoly operator (the former Port Company) authorised to provide services consisting of temporary port
work in accordance with Article 17 of Law No 84/94.