WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transport and slaughter of animals in Greece.
Date: 2001-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, animal welfare, offence, slaughter of animals, transport of animals

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/215

According to Directives 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment and 97/11/EC (2), which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States
are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the
environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for
development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are
identified in the annexes.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC, either before or after being amended by Directive 97/11/EC, projects falling
into Annex I are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work
to which the question makes reference, falls within the scope of Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, and,
in particular,
into category 7 (lines for long-distance railway traffic) of Annex I of the two directives.
However, no element is given by which it can be deduced that the directive is being breached in the
specific case. When no evidence is given to indicate that Community law has been breached (or is going to
be breached), the Commission considers that there are no grounds for intervention. Actions by the
Commission in order to check the correct application of Community law in Member States must be based
on claims which reveals elements (facts and acts) on the basis of which a breach of Community law can be
envisaged.

Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint in this specific case, no breach of the directive can be
identified at present.

The fact that a national Court opened a procedure for failure to implement environmental protection laws
and that it has suspended various construction projects, as a precautionary measure, on the Bologna-
Florence section of the high-speed rail network is not in itself an element which reveal a breach of the
directive.

In addition, when national courts check the compliance of internal administrative procedures with the
national law derived from Community law they do not do other than ensure that Community law is
properly applied. The fact
the same task as the Commission under
Article 211 of the EC Treaty is perfectly in line with the Commission approach that it is national courts
and administrative bodies that are primarily responsible for ensuring that the authorities of the Member
States comply with Community law.

that national courts carry out

It is to be stressed that action of the national courts is much more effective on cases of Community law
bad application than any Commission intervention. The Commission(cid:146)s powers are limited to those
conferred on it by the EC Treaty. In its task of ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all
Member States, it may start infringement procedures and it may bring the case before the Court of Justice.
However, judgements of the Court of Justice only state whether there has been an infringement. The Court
of Justice can neither annul a national provision which is incompatible with Community law, nor force a
national administration to respond to the request of an individual, nor order a Member State to pay
damages to an individual adversely affected by an infringement of Community law. Only national courts
can issue orders to administrative bodies and annul a national decision. It is also only national courts
which have the power, where appropriate, to order a Member State to make good the loss sustained by
individuals as a result of the infringement of Community law attributable to it.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 40 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Transport and slaughter of animals in Greece

(23 July 2001)

The Commission has recently published a report on a mission it carried out in Greece in November 2000.
The report concludes that, since previous missions, the Greek authorities have made no progress in

C 40 E/216

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

achieving effective enforcement of Community laws on transport and slaughter. Enforcement was very
poor at two ports used for intra-Community trade. At one the inspector failed to detect serious deficiencies
on animal vehicles, such as dead animals, a moribund animal, an injured animal, overcrowding and
incomplete route plans. At the three abattoirs visited several animals were ineffectively stunned in that they
were (cid:145)not completely unconscious before bleeding(cid:146). Other problems include electrical stunning tongs being
placed in the wrong head position and animals receiving several pre-stun electric shocks.

Does the Commission plan to continue with the existing infringement procedure against Greece?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The existing infringement procedure was opened on the basis of evidence obtained during previous
missions of the Food and Veterinary Office and certain information provided by animal welfare societies.

Although Greece claimed to have taken certain action to rectify the deficiencies initially alleged in the
infringement proceedings, the inspection report mentioned by the Honourable Member concluded that
serious deficiencies in implementation and enforcement of the relevant Directives remained.

In such cases the Commission normally pursues the infringement proceedings unless it is satisfied that the
Member State in question has, after issue of the report, taken adequate action to ensure satisfactory
compliance with its obligations under Community law.

The Commission will take a further decision on this matter in the near future.

(2002/C 40 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2201/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Ayuso GonzÆlez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Community Rural Development Initiative (cid:129) Leader+

(23 July 2001)

The Commission notice to the Member States of 14 April 2000 (1) states, inter alia, that the strengths of
the Leader approach are:

(cid:129) the mobilising of local actors to reflect on and take control of the future of their area,

(cid:129) its decentralised, integrated and bottom-up approach to territorial development,

(cid:129) and that (cid:145)the aim of Leader+ is to encourage and help rural actors to think about the longer-term
potential of their area(cid:146) and (cid:145)cooperation in the broad sense of the term will be a fundamental
component of Leader+(cid:146).

In view of this:

1.

2.

3.

should not local actors have the freedom to mobilise themselves, provided that they comply with the
requirements laid down by the Commission, and is this not the aim set out by the Commission in its
notice;

can a regional government decide which municipalities should constitute the various (cid:145)local action
groups(cid:146);

does the Commission consider that cooperation can be free, voluntary and spontaneous, if a regional
government imposes its ideas on the municipalities and districts in the region?

(1) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000, p. 5.