WRITTEN QUESTION P-2472/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in piglets.
Date: 2001-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, animal disease, exchange of information, health control, human nutrition, public health, swine, veterinary legislation

C 115 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission, as announced in its Communication on the European Social Agenda (5), will develop,
with the social partners at Community level and with the other institutions, a Community response
designed to enhance the ability to cope successfully with industrial change.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to

collective redundancies * OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of

to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
undertakings or businesses * OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

(3) Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
informing and consulting employees * OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(4) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
(5) COM(2000) 379 final.

(2002/C 115 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2472/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Subject: Postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in piglets

According to reports in the Dutch media (Varkens met wegkwijnziekte eindigen toch in slagerij (Pigs with
PMWS still end up in the abattoir), Volkskrant 17 August 2001), postweaning multisystemic wasting
syndrome (PMWS) is causing serious illness among piglets on 36 % of pig farms in the Netherlands. An
increasing number of piglets * a quarter at present * do not survive this illness.

In spite of the provisions of the Meat Inspection Law stipulating that products from visibly sick animals
must be withdrawn immediately from the food chain, sick animals are being slaughtered and their meat
processed for human consumption.

Is the Commission aware of this situation in the Netherlands? If so, is the Commission of the opinion that
Netherlands law is not being complied with?

If the Commission takes the view that the Netherlands are not properly complying with the law, what
steps does the Commission envisage taking to compel the Netherlands to enforce European law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the emergence of Postweaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) in
pigs, both in many Member States, including the Netherlands, and in third countries. Although there is no
indication or suspicion that this disease poses any risk to human health, the Commission, taking into
account the economic importance of the pig-rearing sector and the uncertain aetiology of the disease, is
funding two research projects in this area which started in early 2000.

The Commission has no evidence that pigs affected by this disease have been slaughtered in the normal
way, either in the Netherlands or in other Member States, and would ask the Honourable Member to pass
on the information in his possession.

The Commission would like to draw his attention to the fact that the disease in question affects piglets
aged between five and 12 weeks. Consequently, it is unlikely that infected animals would enter the food
chain, given that pigs are normally slaughtered at around six months old.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/95

Under Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community
trade in fresh meat (1), it is up to the official veterinarian to establish during the ante mortem examination
whether an animal presented for slaughter is fit to enter the food chain.

If the Commission were to find evidence of a contravention of this rule or other elements of Community
law,
initiate
it would take the appropriate steps with the Member State concerned and,
infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

if necessary,

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964.

(2002/C 115 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Activities of OLAF

As the OLAF Supervisory Committee explicitly recognises (1), ‘the institutions have long been concerned
about the need to strengthen the means of combating fraud affecting the Community budget’. For many
years it seems there were no reliable estimates of the sums wrongfully taken from the Community (and the
European taxpayer). It was roughly calculated as ‘amounting to 10 % of the budget, while at the same time
the Community institutions had virtually no powers in this area’. The Supervisory Committee goes on to
say that only ‘in the early 1990s, a number of high-profile cases of fraud’ led to a strengthening of the
powers of UCLAF, the office responsible for ‘coordinating the exercise of the various powers conferred on
the Commission in the area of administrative controls’. Although this was a worthy intention it did not
come to anything, since ‘Parliament and the Council came across instances of irregularities and fraud in the
course of the discharge procedure for 1996’. This led to the decision to set up OLAF, which came into
operation in 1999.

In view of the above, can the Commission state the exact amounts, for each Member State, recovered by
the EU budget as a result of OLAF’s work over the last few years?

(1) OJ C 360, 14.12.2000, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2001)

the White Paper on administrative reform,

In accordance with Action 96 of
the Commission has
established guidelines for the recovery of debts in the field of expenditure managed directly by the
Commission (1). These guidelines seek to step up the responsibility of the Commission’s authorising
departments and to increase cooperation between them and the Commission Accounting Officer, the Legal
Service and also the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
investigative role and
resulting capacity to instigate legal proceedings.

in view of its special

The Commission would point out that responsibility for recovery related to indirect spending and own
resources, including in relation to OLAF investigations, lies primarily with the Member States.

The time periods which may be needed to complete recovery (particularly in cases where the recovery
procedure is suspended due to criminal proceedings) must also be taken into account.