WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/01 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Complaint No 2000/421 SG(2000) A/15164/3.
Date: 2001-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, complaint to the Commission, damage, free movement of goods, infringement of EU law, transport of animals

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/207

Since the project was according to the technical assessment i.a. likely to significantly affect the priority
plant species Oenanthe conioides of Annex II of the Habitats Directive, Germany asked by letter of
25 October 1999 for an opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.

The Commission has accepted that there were no feasible alternatives for the project and that there was
indeed an overriding public interest due to the European economic importance of this project being an
asset in the highly competitive international market of airliner production.

After having examined the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and
having received in particular the assurance from Germany that more sites for this species Oenanthe
conioides would be proposed in 2000, the Commission was satisfied that the provisions of Article 6(4) of
the Habitats Directive (see above) had been respected by Germany and therefore granted a favourable
opinion on 19 April 2000.

The Commission confirms having received inter alia a letter from the German Chancellor of 15 March
2000.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(2001/C 261 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/01

by JosØ PomØs Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Complaint No 2000/421 SG(2000) A/15164/3

On 2 December 1998, two Spanish lorries carrying 250 pigs each the property of the livestock firm
Biurrum S.L., were on their way to the Caso slaughterhouse in Malveira (Portugal) when they were
intercepted at Aguas de Moura by a group of thirty or forty individuals, some of them masked, carrying
fire arms or other weapons. The lorries were seized and then pushed, fully loaded, down an embankment,
causing the loss of all the livestock and the destruction of the vehicles.

In the wake of a lengthy procedure which initiated over two years ago, and which has still produced no
results despite Portuguese Government repudiation of the events, what measures has the Commission
taken in view of Complaint No 2000/4241 SG(2000) A/15164/3 lodged on 17 November 2000 against
the Portuguese Republic, for violation of Community law in respect of the freedom of movement of
goods?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The Commission has examined Complaint No 2000/4241 concerning the violence committed by private
individuals on 2 December 1998, which caused substantial damage to vehicles transporting live animals
and the loss of a large number of animals, as well as the difficulties encountered in obtaining compensa-
tion for the damage incurred.

In line with the condemnation expressed by the Portuguese authorities themselves, the Commission wishes
to stress that it has always condemned violence by private individuals against the principle of free
movement of goods.

C 261 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Failure on the part of the responsible authorities of the Member State concerned to take the law and order
measures necessary to put an end to a situation of this kind has already led the Commission to initiate
infringement proceedings, and the Court of Justice to rule in its judgment of 9 December 1997 in Case
C-265/95 Commission v. France that (cid:145)by failing to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in order
to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by actions by private
individuals, the French Government has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 (now Article 28),
in conjunction with Article 5 (now Article 10), of the Treaty and under the common organisations of the
markets in agricultural products(cid:146) (ECR I-6959).

In the case in point, it seems however that the considerations which led the Court of Justice to the finding
that France had not taken (cid:145)all necessary and proportionate measures(cid:146), such as the length of time during
which the incidents occurred and their frequency, are not easily applicable to an isolated and unforeseeable
incident such as the interception of the two lorries belonging to (cid:145)Biurrun L.S.(cid:146).

In these circumstances, the case law of the Court of Justice by which it recognised that the principle of the
liability of the Member State for damage caused to private individuals by breaches of Community law
which are ascribable to it is inherent in the Treaty system (see judgment of 19 November 1991, Cases
C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich, ECR I-5357 and judgment of 5 March 1996, Joined Cases C-46/93 and
C-48/93, Brasserie du PŒcheur and Factortame III, ECR I-1029) appears difficult to apply to the situation
evoked in Complaint No 2000/4241.

The facts alluded to in Complaint No 2000/4241 date back to 1998, and the Commission is not aware of
a repetition of such incidents which would tend to show laxness on the part of the Portuguese authorities
in implementing proportionate measures to prevent private individuals from committing acts which
impede the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, the Commission has asked the Portuguese authorities
what steps they have taken to deal in the future with this type of situation, taking account in particular of
the obligations incumbent on them under Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on
the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member
States (1).

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2001/C 261 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: The serving of shark products in Commission restaurants

In view of concerns about the depletion of shark stocks, will the Commission make a commitment to
ensure that shark-fin soup and other shark products are not served in any of the Commission(cid:146)s restaurants
or at official functions?

A commitment has been made by the Quaestors of the European Parliament to ban shark from the
Parliament(cid:146)s restaurants.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it will not serve shark fin soup or other shark products in any of its
restaurants or at any official functions.