WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, intra-EU trade, protection of animals, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

C 364 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

role. This difference is necessarily reflected in comparisons of the level of taxes and social contributions
(paid also on social benefits) to finance mandatory public schemes because these data do not take into
account (cid:145)purely private(cid:146) expenditure by households.

On the other hand, the Commission is not in a position to assess the situation in the United States in
terms of coverage of population or needs.

Data on social protection expenditure (on the basis of gross or net data) are not sufficient to assess the
efficiency of social protection systems because they lack information on the percentage of population
covered, on the level of benefits paid to individuals, on the redistributive effects and on the real situation
of individuals in terms of their health condition.

(1) See for example Willem Adema, Net Social Expenditure, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No 39,

OECD, 1999.

(2001/C 364 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection

An official government report
((cid:145)Better animal protection(cid:146), SOU 2000:108) published in Sweden in
December 2000 states that the Swedish model, whereby animal protection is under the supervision at local
level of the local authorities, does not meet the requirements of EU Directive 90/425/EEC (1). The author of
the report maintains that, owing to EU requirements, the task of supervision must be removed from the
local authorities and proposes that responsibility should pass to the government.

The assertion that the Swedish model does not meet EU requirements has been met with astonishment,
not least by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, which questions the report(cid:146)s claim. The Swedish
Government, however, has been pressing for a number of years to take over responsibility for local
supervision from the local authorities. Their own parliamentary group, however, is opposed, which has
meant that the government has been unable to put forward proposals. It is suspected, therefore, that it is
the government(cid:146)s own political ambitions which lie behind the report(cid:146)s conclusion rather than the EU
directive.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish model, under which the local authorities are responsible
for local supervision, is contrary to any current EU directive?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Article 2 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 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 internat market, provides the following definition of competent authorities:

competent authority shall mean the central authority of a Member State competent to carry out
veterinary or zootechnical checks or any authority to which it has delegated that competence.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/13

The Directive does not provide or ban any particular model of organisation to implement the veterinary
legislation within the Member States, as it opens the possibility to the central authority to delegate its
competence.

However, it should be recalled that according to the general principles of Community law it is for the
Member States to ensure that Community legislation is implemented within their territory. Insofar as
Community law does not include common rules to this effect, the national authorities when implementing
legislation act in accordance with their own national law. However, this rule must be reconciled with the
need to apply Community law uniformly (1).

(1) Court of Justice in Case 205-215/82 (Milchkontor), [1983] E.C.R. 2 633.

(2001/C 364 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/01

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: CAP reform and the EU budget

A consequence of the BSE crisis (the culmination of a series of events which have challenged the EU
agriculture policy(cid:146)s emphasis on production) is that the decisions taken by the Commission and the larger
Member States regarding the need to reform the CAP make it necessary to consider in addition the need
for a consistent and thorough-going reform of the structure of the CAP(cid:146)s budget, which currently absorbs
45 % of the Community budget. Such a reform cannot wait until the end of the 2000-2006 period
corresponding to the Agenda 2000 forecasts. What are the Commission(cid:146)s plans for a CAP and Community
budget reform programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission shares the view expressed by the Honourable Member concerning the serious nature of
the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis. The BSE-crisis calls for immediate measures on the
beef and feedstuff markets.

These measures should be distinguished from the mid-term review foreseen in the Conclusions of the
European Council of Berlin of 25 March 1999. The mid-term review in 2002 will include several sectors
(arable crops; milk quota system; wine production potential) and the agricultural budget.

Some further sectors might be added in the light of the analysis of the current crisis and the post-crisis
markets for beef and feedstuffs. The structure of postreview budget, however, can not be anticipated before
the mid-term review itself.

The Agenda 2000 reform enfolding its economic effects fully not before 2003, the year 2001 will be the
year of analysis.

Finally, as to the question to the overall agricultural budget and its share of the general budget, the figures
until the year 2006 are laid down in the Conclusions of the European Council of Berlin of 25 March
1999. The overall budget for common agricultural policy (CAP) will progressively decrease from the year
2003 on.