WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Delay in approval of new BSE tests.
Date: 2001-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, pharmaceutical industry, restriction on competition, veterinary legislation

C 81 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

The information supplied by the Honourable Members does not enable the Commission to determine
whether Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment (5) has been disregarded.

Accordingly, the Commission will shortly be sending the Spanish authorities a request for information on
the reported situation so that it may check that the relevant Community legislation has been properly
applied.

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.
(2) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988.
(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(5) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2002/C 81 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Compensation from Germany for former Italian military internees (I.M.I.)

A satisfactory outcome is in sight in the long-running matter of compensation for former internees and
workers detained in Germany during the Second World War.

However, because of the incorrect legal definition of their status and the related failure to allow for the fact
that they, as prisoners forced to work in German factories, were not covered by the Geneva Convention,
Italian military internees are in danger of suffering unfair discrimination compared with other former
internees and may thus be completely debarred from receiving the compensation being offered.

Not least in the light of Parliament(cid:146)s resolution B2-1475/86/rev. on compensation for persons formerly
employed as slave labour in German industry (1), can the Council say what representations it will make to
the German Government to help resolve this delicate issue and prevent unwarranted discrimination against
the former I.M.I.?

(1) OJ C 36, 17.2.1986, p. 129.

Reply

(27 November 2001)

The Council is not competent to give an answer to the question raised by the Honourable Member of
Parliament.

(2002/C 81 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Delay in approval of new BSE tests

(18 July 2001)

From 1 July 2001 each Member State, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Austria, Sweden and
Finland, must test all slaughtered cattle aged 30 months or more for BSE.

The BSE tests must undergo trials by DG Sanco at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Geel in order to
receive approval. At present the market is divided among three manufacturers whose tests have been
approved since 1999. Other manufacturers have submitted new tests for approval since then. At the
beginning of 2001 the approval of these new tests was scheduled for April/May this year, which would
have meant early access to this large market for the new manufacturers. However, this approval is now not
expected until the end of August 2001.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/121

1.

Can the Commission explain the cause for this long delay?

2.
Is the Commission aware that, owing to this delay, the current manufacturers are occupying a
monopoly position with their tests, particularly taking into account that, if a laboratory uses a specific test
once, it continues to use it for a long period? What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion on this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for
the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), as last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), lists three rapid tests which
are approved for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring. The tests were selected based on an
evaluation carried out by the Commission in 1999.

A second evaluation started in December 2000. As in the first evaluation, the tests to be evaluated were
selected by a panel of experts following a worldwide call for expressions of interest.

The second evaluation has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease in the United Kingdom lead to a delay in the delivery of positive samples from the national
reference laboratory in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there were unexpected problems using the
available frozen test samples and a new series had to be prepared. Clearly, it would be unacceptable to
accelerate the approval of tests without ensuring that the necessary scientific evaluation is rigorously and
properly carried out. Public health considerations must take precedence over commercial considerations in
this respect.

The Commission does not consider the present situation a monopoly, as the three approved tests are
manufactured and marketed by different companies. The Commission is however following the situation
carefully.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.
(2) OJ L 177, 30.6.2001.

(2002/C 81 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s position on barriers to market liberalisation in some Member States

Some Member States are blocking or delaying the process of market liberalisation under way in the EU.
This is true of the energy sector in France and Germany.

For example, France is maintaining two State monopolies in the energy sector, both expanding rapidly in
competition with other liberalised European undertakings, with the support of the European Union.

Precisely because of this EU support, the question is continuously being asked why the Commission does
not adopt a clear and firm stance on the matter, by taking measures against those countries which block
or delay liberalisation.

How will the Commission tackle these restrictive practices, which various Member States are pursuing in
this field?