WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Publication of limits on residues by the 15 EU Member States.
Date: 2001-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, dissemination of information, food standard, human nutrition, veterinary drug

C 350 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

outlined above through improving our capacity to anticipate and manage change through the Dublin
Observatory; by creating legal mechanisms to ensure adequate protection of workers in situations of
industrial restructuring; and by developing corporate social responsibility.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(2) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.
(3) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.
(4) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
(5) COM(2000) 379 final.

(2001/C 350 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the 15 EU Member States

John McCartin, MEP, tabled a written question to the Commission concerning
On 30 March 2000,
(cid:145)maximum permissible residue limits and residue surveillance policy(cid:146) (E-1114/00 (1)). On the basis of data
provided by the pharmaceutical industry, the CVMP in London determines maximum permissible residues
for the active ingredients of veterinary medicines destined for use in food-producing animals.

The 15 EU Member States are required by law to submit their food-residue monitoring programmes for
the coming year and the results for the previous year to the Commission. The results indicate the incidence
of residues from veterinary medicines in food samples from the European Union.

Only one EU Member State (cid:129) the United Kingdom (cid:129) publishes such detailed results every three months.
The other Member States fail to comply or else publish incomplete information, in some cases on the
Internet. Yet complete and transparent publication of such residue results by all EU Member States could
promote consumer confidence.

Can the Commission confirm that only one EU Member State (cid:129) the United Kingdom (cid:129) publishes
a detailed overview of residues of veterinary medicines detected in food samples every three months? If
not, do other EU Member States similarly publish (at the same intervals and in the same degree of detail)
the quantities of residues detected in food samples?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

According to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996, on measures to monitor certain substances
forward to the
and residues thereof
Commission, on a yearly basis, the results of their residue and substance detection plans and of their
control measures. Member States shall make public the outcome of the implementation of the plans(cid:146).

in live animals and animal products (1),

(cid:145)Member States shall

In accordance with these requirements, every year, before 31 March,
the Commission receives the
monitoring plans of the Member States and the results of their plan of the previous year. It is the task of
the Commission to evaluate this information. However, it is the responsibility of the Member States to
make public their results, but the Directive does not specify under which form.

The Commission is not aware of the refusal of any Member State to provide this information upon
request.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/49

As regards the two precise questions posed by the Honourable Member, the Commission can confirm that
the United Kingdom transmits yearly to the Commission a full public report on the results of their residue
control plans, as do all other Member States in various forms.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2001/C 350 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0843/01

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Breaches of Community rules

With regard to possible breaches of Community rules, will the Commission provide details of instances in
which Denmark has drafted legislation and taken decisions which have ultimately had to be reworked at
the request of the Commission and, if a summary of that information is available, could the Commission
forward it to me?

Where there were differences between Danish legislation and Community rules, was it possible to resolve
those inconsistencies bilaterally or was it ever necessary to take matters to the court? Is there a summary
available of the methods used to resolve any inconsistencies there may have been?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

Breaches of the Community rules are so many and varied that there is no specific list or instrument
showing the cases where legislation or decisions adopted by a Member State have had to be reworked at
the request of the Commission in the course of infringement proceedings.

Some information may be gleaned, however, from the statistics on infringement proceedings which are to
be found in the annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law (1). Over the period
1979-1999, for example, about 1 300 infringement proceedings were initiated against Denmark. Over the
same period the Court of Justice gave judgment on 11 applications lodged in this context, ruling in favour
of the Commission in nine of the cases. About one hundred infringement procedures against Denmark are
currently in progress.

Almost 50 % of all infringements involved a failure to notify national measures transposing Community
in 10 % of cases the said measures did not comply with the
directives (non-notification), whilst
requirements laid down in the directives (non-compliance) and almost 40 % of cases related to improper
application of the Community rules, either in general or in particular respects. It is mainly in such cases of
improper application that the Commission may request Member States to amend national measures since
cases of (cid:145)non-notification(cid:146) and (cid:145)non-compliance(cid:146) are covered by the obligation to transpose Community
directives correctly. It should also be pointed out that some 40 % of cases are cleared up before a letter of
formal notice is sent out, the complaint having been found to be unjustified.

(1)

For the 1999 report, see OJ C 30, 30.1.2001.