WRITTEN QUESTION P-1260/01 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Decision 2001/208/EC of 14 March 2001 concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot and mouth disease in France.
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, foot-and-mouth disease, interpretation of the law, intra-EU trade, transport document, veterinary legislation

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/105

This classification does not automatically lead to restrictions of the marketing and use of trichloroethylene.
However, Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994 (2), 14th amendment to
Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
dangerous substances and preparations (3), introduces the policy of restricting the use by the general public
of substances classified as carcinogens, mutagens or toxic to reproduction category 1 or 2 (CMR) and
invites the Commission to present proposals to ban the use by the general public of substances newly
classified as CMR category 1 or 2. Following the classification as a category 2 carcinogen the Commission
will consider adding trichloroethylene to the list of substances banned for use by the general public in
Council Directive 76/769/EEC.

With respect to the professional and industrial use, Article 5(6) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of
11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic
solvents in certain activities and installations (4) sets out
that volatile organic compounds (such as
trichloroethylene) classified as carcinogens, mutagens, or toxic to reproduction according to Directive 67/
548/EEC shall be replaced as far as possible by less harmful substances or preparations within the shortest
possible time. According to Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/13/EC, the Commission will publish guidance
for such replacement. When developing such guidance, the economic consequences, in particular, the costs
and benefits of the options available have to be considered. Industries reliant on the specific technical
properties of trichloroethylene may therefore be able to continue using it, if this can be justified on cost-
benefit grounds.

Furthermore, trichloroethylene is subject to risk assessment in the framework of Council Regulation 793/
93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (5). Following the
finalisation of this risk assessment further risk reduction measures, including restrictions on the marketing
and use, may be proposed if appropriate.

(1) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(4) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999.
(5) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2001/C 350 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1260/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Decision 2001/208/EC of 14 March 2001 concerning certain protection measures with regard to

foot and mouth disease in France

Given that:

(cid:129) the Italian text of Decision 2001/208/EC (1) stipulates that the commercial document required by
Community legislation for intra-Community trade must be endorsed and must be accompanied by an
attached copy of the official certificate stating that the production process has been audited and found
in compliance with the appropriate requirements;

(cid:129) a literal

interpretation of

the commercial
document and a further veterinary certificate stating that the production process has been audited and
found in compliance with the appropriate requirements, a certificate which is valid for 30 days, are
required;

this provision implies that both an endorsement of

(cid:129) a literal translation of the French and English text of the Decision suggests that it is enough for the
commercial document required by Community legislation for intra-Community trade to be endorsed
by the attachment of a copy of an official certificate stating that the production process has been
audited and found in compliance with the appropriate requirements;

(cid:129) on the basis of the Italian text, each consignment must be inspected by a civil servant empowered to
carry out checks, whereas, for example, a French seller of hides, in order to comply with the law
applicable to him, must merely present, attached to the commercial document, the copy of a certificate
which an official veterinary surgeon issues only once every 30 days;

C 350 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

(cid:129) the difference is significant as regards compliance with the law and the swiftness of legal procedures.

Can the Commission state:

(cid:129) which language version is authentic;

(cid:129) what steps it intends to take to deal with this problem and how soon;

(cid:129) whether this state of affairs might not give rise to breaches of the rules underpinning competition

policy and the single market.

(1) OJ L 73, 15.3.2001, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission noticed that the Italian version of Article 9 of Commission
Decision 2001/208/EC of 14 March 2001 concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-
mouth disease in France is indeed different from the other language versions published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities. Contrary to what the Honourable Member says in his question, the
Italian version of the above Decision does not require the consignment to be inspected by the official
veterinarian responsible; it merely requires the latter to stamp the commercial document.

It was not the Community legislator(cid:146)s intention to impose a special stamp on the document accompanying
the products to which the above Article 9 applies.

The Commission deeply regrets the error in the Italian version. It feels, however, that there would be no
point in publishing an amendment in the Official Journal, because the provisions set out in Decision 2001/
208/EC, as amended for example by Commission Decision 2001/250/EC of 29 March 2001 (1), no longer
apply since 12 April 2001.

(1) OJ L 90, 30.3.2001.

(2001/C 350 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Additives in organic food

Will the Commission explain why it wishes to ruin organic food production by authorising a long list of
additives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products
and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) established the production
rules, labelling provisions and inspection rules and precautionary measures for products of agricultural
origin where such products bear or are intended to bear indications referring to the organic production
method. Specific requirements have been laid down for ingredients of non-agricultural origin contained in
food bearing indications referring to the organic production methods. In particular a limited list of
additives for food composed essentially of one or more ingredients of plant origin has been established and
very strict conditions preside to the amendment of this list according to Article 7 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91.