WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/01 by Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Public Prosecutor.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, European Commission, division of powers, fraud, fraud against the EU, powers of the institutions (EU)

C 318 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

For the reasons explained above, the Commission must refer the Honourable Member to the respective
Member States for obtaining information about their proposed contribution to the Natura 2000 network.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 318 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1104/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease

When was the European Commission first informed by the British Government, either formally or
informally, of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Information on the first two outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Great Britain was provided by
telephone by the Chief Veterinary Officer of the United Kingdom, to the Head of the competent Unit of
the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection of the Commission, on 20 February 2001 at
about 21h15 (Brussels time) i.e. a few hours after the laboratory confirmation of disease.

About one hour later, after an exchange of views between the relevant Commission(cid:146)s officials on the most
urgent actions to be taken, all Chief Veterinary Officers of the Member States were informed by the
Commission via fax.

On 21 February 2001,
in collaboration with the United Kingdom, the Commission formally adopted
Decision 2001/145/EC of 21 February 2001 concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-
and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom (1) as a safeguard measure, to forbid the dispatch from the
United Kingdom of the animals and animal products, which may potentially spread foot-and-mouth
disease virus.

(1) OJ L 53, 23.2.2001.

(2001/C 318 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/01

by Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: European Public Prosecutor

Recent Commission communications and European Parliament reports have called for the establishment of
a European Public Prosecutor(cid:146)s Office for the protection of the Community(cid:146)s financial interests.

If such an office were to be established, can the Commission clearly state that it will never attempt to
extend the Prosecutor(cid:146)s powers beyond the sole protection of the Community(cid:146)s financial interests?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its opinion of January 2000 and communication
of September 2000, in which it has undertaken to protect the Community(cid:146)s financial interests (1).

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/205

The Commission is preparing a Green Paper which will cover the practical arrangements connected with
setting up the office of European public prosecutor with power to protect the Community(cid:146)s financial
interests. It should adopt the Green Paper before the end of 2001.

(1) Commission Opinion of 26 January 2000 Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement,
COM(2000) 34 final and the Communication of 29 September 2000 Additional Commission contribution to the
Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms. The criminal protection of the Community(cid:146)s financial
interests: A European Prosecutor, COM(2000) 608 final.

(2001/C 318 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/01

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Unjust penalisation of German haulage firms by UK immigration authorities

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, are the UK(cid:146)s stricter (cid:145)border controls(cid:146) on Union citizens entering the
immigration, consistent with

in order to combat illegal

1.
country by bus or car from Member States,
European law?

2.
In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is the heavy fine of GBP 2 000 per illegal immigrant imposed by the UK
immigration authorities on German haulage firms in the event of such individuals being found in their
lorries or containers, when those firms are not culpable, consistent with European law?

Given that haulage firms operating to the UK are already forced to make expensive additional investment
in safety precautions and driver training, what is the Commission doing in response to this distortion of
competition?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

According to the Commission(cid:146)s information, the checks that the British authorities make on Union
1.
citizens travelling to the United Kingdom by bus or car are consistent with Community law, which states
that Union citizens may enter the territory of a Member State merely on presentation of a valid identity
card or passport.

2.
Community law as it stands does not deal with the responsibility of road haulage firms for persons
who are on board vehicles and who do not have the travel documents required for entry into the territory
of the Member States.

The requirement to comply with safety precautions and provide driver training does not in itself constitute
a distortion of competition. The British inspection measures do not make any distinction as regards the
origin of the goods or the nationality of the road haulage firm concerned. The Commission is therefore of
the opinion that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not contravene Community law.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-
4024/00 by Ms Doyle (1).

The Commission will, however, continue to monitor this problem and to examine any implications for
Community law.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 50.