WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/01 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Livestock premiums.
Date: 2001-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, aid to agriculture, animal welfare, competence of the Member States, eligibility criteria, export refund, livestock farming

C 205 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

The Commission also wishes to point out that the procedures laid down by the Community
2.
Directives currently in force, and the transparency which these bring, are also intended to combat
corruption and fraud in public contracts. The monitoring of compliance with these procedures, particularly
by the Commission but also by the national courts, plays a part in the battle against these practices.

The Commission is convinced that its new measure, once approved and in force, will help tighten up the
checks on procedures for awarding public contracts, by making it compulsory for awarding authorities to
exclude tenderers guilty of the aforementioned offences, rather than simply giving them this option, as at
present.

3.
Should the Honourable Member have any knowledge of award procedures for public contracts
during which the Italian authorities may have favoured entrepreneurs linked to a criminal organisation,
and this despite healthy competition at Community level, he is free to inform the Commission of this. If he
did so, the Commission would examine the information received and request, if needs be, any necessary
clarification from the Italian authorities, in order to check whether there would be any reason to initiate
infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 142.

(2002/C 205 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/01

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Livestock premiums

livestock farmers have applied for and been granted EU
In Sweden, and probably in other countries,
livestock premiums, but then failed to treat their animals in accordance with the laws and regulations in
force. Premiums have even been granted to persons who had been banned from keeping animals because
of their past neglect.

The EU livestock premiums are paid even if the animals are neglected, and regardless whether their owner
is authorised to keep livestock. The premiums are paid so long as the owner has the animals in his
possession.

Is the Council aware of this problem and, if so, how does it intend to deal with it?

Has the Council sought to ascertain the percentage of the livestock premiums paid each year in the EU
which goes to persons who neglect their livestock?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

The various schemes under which Community aid is payable to livestock farmers are governed by

1.
three Council Regulations, namely:

7 Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1);

7 Regulation (EC) No 2467/1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and
goatmeat (2). However, with effect from 1 January 2002, this Regulation was superseded by Regulation
(EC) No 2529/2001 of 19 December 2001 (3);

7 Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European
and amending and repealing certain

and Guarantee

Fund (EAGGF)

Agricultural Guidance
Regulations (4).

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/31

legislative acts lay down the conditions for granting the various
On one hand, these three Council
premiums for cattle, sheep and goats, as well as any supplementary aid which may be payable to livestock
farmers. On the other, they define the criteria governing the eligibility of producers. The rules necessary
for implementing these provisions are laid down by the Commission in accordance with the Management
Committee procedure.

2.
The Honourable Member is, moreover, undoubtedly aware that the Council has adopted a large body
of legislation concerning livestock welfare [cf. in particular Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection
of animals kept
the
In addition,
abovementioned basic Regulation on beef and veal establishes a direct link between eligibility for such
refunds and compliance with animal welfare standards.

in the specific area of export refunds,

for farming purposes (5)].

Indeed, the last subparagraph of Article 33(9) of that Regulation stipulates that ‘the payment of the refund
for exports of live animals shall be subject to compliance with the provisions established in Community
legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.’

3.
It is not the responsibility of the Council to monitor implementation by the Member States of its
own acts. This responsibility was conferred by the EC Treaty on the Commission, which is also authorised
to submit to the Council and the European Parliament proposals it might deem appropriate for rectifying
the alleged shortcomings to which the Honourable Member refers.

4.
Furthermore, right to enter the profession falls within the competence of the Member States, which
are therefore responsible for checking whether the relevant provisions laid down to this end are properly
implemented and for imposing penalties should any deficiencies be detected.

Moreover, there are no statistics on livestock premiums paid in the European Union to farmers who might
have mistreated their animals.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 312, 20.11.1998, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 3.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
(5) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2002/C 205 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Assassination of four journalists in Afghanistan

four journalists,

On 19 november 2001,
including the one dispatched by the Corriere della Sera
newspaper, Maria Grazia Cutuli, were assassinated in Afghanistan, on the road between Jalalabad and
Kabul. They were travelling in a convoy of vehicles and were in the first car 7 the only one to be caught
in the tragic homicidal ambush and to be drawn away from the rest of the convoy. The final article written
by the Italian journalist was the fruit of an investigation carried out in association with the Spanish
reporter from the El Mundo newspaper concerning the discovery of phials of nerve gas in the hands of Al
Q’aeda militiamen. The driver and an interpreter who were travelling with the four journalists were
allowed to flee; they were able to spread the news of what had happened and ensure that the rest of the
convoy turned back. This latter circumstance, together with the fact that no items were stolen, suggests
that the act was not a robbery or a demonstration against foreign journalists (one of those killed was in
fact an Afghan), but purely and simply an execution.

Is the Council aware of any facts other than those which were published in the media?

Does it intend to carry out an investigation using the means available to governments with a view to
establishing whether or not the homicidal ambush was premeditated and ordered by someone who could
have had an interest in silencing any voices capable of reporting the fact that members of Al Q’aeda had
chemical weapons in their possession?