WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/01 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Cost of combating and preventing BSE in the European Union.
Date: 2001-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, financing, production aid, slaughter premium

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/113

subject to the Member States(cid:146) national rules. Neither is there a consensus among the EU business
community on making origin marking compulsory, which would have to apply both to imported goods
and to goods manufactured in the EU.

(1) OJ L 341, 30.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 27, 2.2.1999.
(3) COM(2000) 789 final.

(2002/C 40 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Cost of combating and preventing BSE in the European Union

Can the Commission indicate the approximate costs of BSE tests as carried out in the different

1.
Member States of the EU?

Can the Commission state by whom those costs are borne in the different Member States of the EU:
2.
by cattle owners, by processing undertakings, by the consumer, or by regional or national governments?

Can the Commission state what rules are applied in the different Member States of the EU to
livestock,

3.
compensation to farmers whose holdings have been infected by BSE (destruction of
compensation for loss of earnings)?

4.

Can the Commission state who pays for the destruction of the carcasses of BSE-infected herds?

Can the Commission state what the costs are of the non-use followed by destruction of animal meal,

5.
and by whom those costs are borne in the different Member States of the EU?

Does the Commission consider that it can be concluded from the answers to the above questions

6.
that cattle holders in the EU are operating under equal conditions of competition?

Answer given by Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

At present, the Commission does not have information concerning all Member States. On the basis
1.
of available information, costs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-detection (sampling at slaughter
line, transportation, purchase of test-kit, laboratory analysis, etc) are estimated by Member States to vary
from ca € 43 to € 90, going up to € 350 in the United Kingdom.

2. Member States have introduced different systems for financing these costs. In some Member States,
they are fully paid by the government or regional authority. In other Member States, producers and/or
slaughterhouses and/or all operators in the chain pay part or all of the costs. The Community participates
at a rate of 100 % of the costs (VAT excluded) of the purchase of the test kit and reagents, up to a
maximum of € 15-30 per test, depending on the target group where the test was carried out.

3.
Several Member States have notified. State aid regimes compensating farmers for the the value of
animals destroyed because a case of BSE has been detected on the farm, as well as for the cost of sanitary
measures necessary on such a farm, for restocking the herd, and possibly aid for income foregone before
and during restocking. Member States frequently also take over the cost of the destruction of the animal,
and costs linked to this like transport costs. Since 1 July 2001, Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 999/
2001 of the Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of
certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1) provides that owners shall be compensated without
delay for the loss of the animals that have been killed or products of animal origin destroyed following
detection of a positive BSE case.

C 40 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

4. Member States can arrange who is to bear the costs for the destruction of animal carcases struck
with BSE. The Commission does not have an overview of how this is financed in the different Member
States. In case State aid is involved, a notification to the Commission in conformity with Article 88(3) of
the EC Treaty would be required, in order to assess the compatibility of the measure with State aid rules.

5.
The Commission does not have concise information on this point. As a matter of example, in the
United Kingdom the cost of over-thirty months meat and bone meal (MBM) destruction is in the range of
GBP 60,00 to 90,00 per tonne. As to who covers the costs, reference is made to the reply to question 4.

6.
Longer-lasting substantial differences between the level of public funding for these measures may
very well have an impact on the relative competitive position of producers. This is why control and review
by the Commission of all State aids is essential,
in order to ascertain that possible distortions of
competition caused by a State aid are outweighed by positive effects of the aid.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2002/C 40 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1828/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Application of Euratom to military nuclear tests

Will the Commission instruct its legal services to examine the judgment made by a British court on
29 March 2001 to the effect that the Euratom Treaty does not cover military activities, in contrast to the
fact that the Commission decided in its legal opinion of RB/HGG/ve(95)1824, 5-9-95, that Euratom does
apply to military nuclear tests?

Answer given by Mr Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the judgement made by a British Court on 29 March 2001 which concludes
that the Euratom Treaty does not cover military activities.

Unlike the judgement of the British court, the Commission is of the view that the provisions of Chapter 3
(cid:145)Health and Safety(cid:146) of Title II of the Euratom Treaty apply to activities in both civil and military spheres.
The protection of the health and the safety of the public in the field of radiation protection is an indivisible
objective and extends to all dangers arising from ionizing radiation, irrespective of their source.

This opinion has been expressed, not only in 1995 concerning the French military nuclear tests in
Mururoa and Fangatofa but also, more recently,
in the framework of the dismantling operations of
Windscale Pile I nuclear reactor (see answer to written question P-3055/00 by Mrs Doyle (1)).

Unless a European Court of Justice Decision rules otherwise, this judgement will not modify in the future
the Commission(cid:146)s approach on the applicability of the Euratom Treaty to military installations.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.