WRITTEN QUESTION P-3024/01 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Destruction of a Dutch meat plant in France.
Date: 2001-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Netherlands, agro-industry, beef, competence of the Member States, free movement of goods, nationalism, ownership, public order, violence

C 115 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

However, driving licences issued in third countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) do not have
to be mutually recognised. Even in case a licence issued in a third country is recognised and exchanged for
a Community licence by one Member State, another Member State is not bound to recognise this
Community licence issued in exchange (as stated in Article 8 paragraph 6 of Directive 91/439/EEC).

The policy of bilateral recognition of licences issued in third countries lies within the discretion of
individual Member States. In case a holder of a Community licence establishes his normal residence in a
third country outside the EEA, the recognition of the licence depends on bilateral agreements in place, as
does the recognition of a third country licence of holders who wish to establish their normal residence in a
Member State.

At present, the existing lists of third countries whose licences are recognised at a bilateral
level are
heterogeneous for a variety of reasons. A coherent Community recognition policy would need to be based
upon objective grounds, which would include an evaluation of examination standards, document security
features and other driving licence-related aspects in a large number of third countries. For the time being,
the Commission is not in a position to carry out such an exercise.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. This act is of relevance to the European Economic Area.

(2002/C 115 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3024/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2001)

Subject: Destruction of a Dutch meat plant in France

In Fougères (France) angry French farmers caused major damage at a branch of a Dutch meat company.
This branch processes Dutch beef. According to the French farmers, they carried out this action because
large amounts of beef are currently being imported into France when sufficient meat is available in the
country itself.

Is the Commission aware that French farmers destroyed a Dutch meat plant in Fougères (France)?

What does the Commission intend to do to protect the property of European citizens against nationalist
actions?

What measures are being proposed by the Commission to prevent such actions against the single market
in future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission had not been informed of the damage caused at the Vivendus meat-cutting plant in
Fougères. In addition to the information provided by the Honourable Member, it should be pointed out
that, at the meeting of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal held on 26 October 2001, the Dutch
delegate raised the matter of the incidents in Fougères in order to denounce the unacceptable character,
from the point of view of the organisation of the market, of situations in which producers in some French
regions threaten or obstruct the operation of slaughterhouses or processing establishments dealing in
particular with beef and veal from other Member States. However, the Commission does not at present
have any precise information on these incidents. In particular, it has not been informed how the French
authorities have reacted in order to eliminate such reprehensible behaviour.

The Commission resolutely condemns violent attacks by individuals against the principle of the free
movement of goods and a failure by the relevant authorities of the Member State concerned to take the
necessary public order measures to put an end to them.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/215

It is common knowledge that a failure by the French authorities to take the public order measures required
to put an end to a situation of this kind has already led the Commission to initiate infringement
proceedings, and the Court of Justice to rule in its judgment of 9 December 1997 in Case C-265/95
Commission v. France [ECR I-6959] that ‘by failing to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in
order to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by actions by private
individuals, the French Government has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 (now Article 28), in
conjunction with Article 5 (now Article 10), of the Treaty and under the common organisations of the
markets in agricultural products’.

It should also be pointed out that, in line with a request from the Amsterdam European Council held on
16 and 17 June 1997, the Council adopted on 7 December 1998 Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 on the
functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1),
which establishes Commission intervention mechanisms aimed at ensuring that the Member States, who
have sole responsibility for maintaining law and order, act swiftly to eliminate serious obstacles to the free
movement of goods caused by the actions of private individuals.

In the light of the abovementioned Court of Justice judgment in Case C-265/95 and Regulation (EC) No
2679/98, the Commission has contacted the French authorities to remind them of their obligations under
Articles 10 (former Article 5) and 28 (former Article 30) of the EC Treaty and the above Regulation, and to
request them to take all necessary and proportionate measures to guarantee the free movement of goods.

In their answer, the French authorities confirmed that acts of violence had been committed during the
night of 14 to 15 October 2001 in the Vivindus meat-cutting plant in Fougères. They claim that the
perpetration of such unexpected acts at night by a group of determined individuals acting swiftly made it
difficult for the police to take prompt counter-measures. Only on the morning of Monday 15 October
2001 were the French authorities able to implement a plan, which consisted in adopting measures such as
opening a judicial enquiry, taking the necessary steps to allow Vivindus to resume operations to secure
compensation for the damage. The Prefect of the Region of Brittany undertook to do his utmost to ensure
that firms are never confronted with similar situations again.

The Commission continues to keep a very close eye on developments in the situation in France with a
view to triggering the mechanisms described above if necessary.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3029/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Insecurity of the Brussels European quarter

Staff of the Union institutions have too often been the victims of mugging and attempted robbery near
their place of work, the ‘European quarter’.

On 6 June 2001, for example, a woman was reported to have been attacked behind the Charlemagne
Building. The attackers tried to snatch her handbag and kicked her until they were eventually scared off by
the horn of a passing car. The police came to the scene but were unable to arrest the attackers, because
they could not be identified beyond doubt. On the same day a man was assaulted at the Schuman metro
station by persons answering the description of the attackers implicated in the first incident. Before these
cases occurred, a woman had been attacked and brutally kicked at the entrance to the Maelbeek metro
station in rue de la Loi. Women in particular, as well as staff who work late, are afraid to move about in
the area concerned for fear of robbery and other crimes.

1.
Have the appropriate Commission departments informed the local security authorities in exact detail
of the assaults on Commission staff, as well as impressing upon them that the situation is totally
intolerable, especially where female employees are concerned?