WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Gap in Sweden's checks for salmonella.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, Sweden, health control, import, marketing, meat, meat product, poultry, zoonosis

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/225

As regards the measures to be taken against anyone issuing incorrect veterinary certificates, certain
requirements are laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of
animals and animal products (3). These measures are the responsibility of the Member States. As part of its
brief, the Food and Veterinary Office regularly looks at checks on certificates issued by the competent
authorities.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 250.
(2) Council Decision 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 (OJ L 243, 11.10.1995), as amended by Council Decision 98/227/EC

(OJ L 87, 21.3.1998).

(3) OJ L 13, 16.1.1997.

(2002/C 147 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Gap in Sweden’s checks for salmonella

Since 12 November 2001, meat preparations imported into Sweden have not been covered by checks for
the presence of salmonella. This means, for instance, that no marinated meat and poultry products are
subject to checks.

Owing to an oversight during the membership negotiations, meat preparations have never been covered
by the guarantees concerning the checks carried out by Sweden. It was, however, universally assumed that
the Swedish National Food Administration issued a
such preparations were covered and,
regulation which included them. But the Food Administration did a U-turn when a Danish import firm
pointed out that its regulation had no legal basis.

in 1998,

Can Sweden extend the guarantee concerning salmonella at the earliest opportunity so as to close the gap
in the checks for salmonella that came about simply because of an oversight during the membership
negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Finland and Sweden were granted additional guarantees for salmonella in the context of their Act of
Accession to the European Union. In Annex I to this Act, these additional guarantees cover trade of live
poultry, eggs, fresh meat and fresh poultry meat to Finland and Sweden. The necessary amendments were
introduced by the Act into the relevant Council Directives.

A corresponding provision was included in Article 3 of Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994
laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat
preparations (1), when Community legislation in this field was revised. This provision applies only to trade
of minced meat intended for Finland and Sweden. Thus, the rules on additional guarantees for salmonella
are applicable to minced meat, but not to meat preparations.

In order to extend the additional guarantees of salmonella to meat preparations Council Directive
94/65/EC should be amended accordingly. However, it is noteworthy that Directive 94/65/EC already lays
down salmonella criteria both for minced meat and meat preparations. These criteria apply to all Member
States.

C 147 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

The Commission is of the opinion that when Community legislation already lays down a criterion for
salmonella in meat preparations, there is no need to extend the additional salmonella guarantees to these
products. Community legislation on food hygiene is currently under review and in that framework the
Commission is in the process of revising microbiological criteria. In this context improved sampling rules
and limits may be considered for meat preparations in order to tighten up the controls.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(2002/C 147 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the EU data protection directive

(17 January 2002)

Have all Member States now ratified the data protection directive? If not, what does the Commission
intend to do to ensure that the directive comes into force throughout the Union as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

To date, all Member States but two (Ireland and Luxembourg) have informed the Commission that they
have adopted legislative or administratives measures to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data (1).

Following the entry into force of the Directive on 15 October 1998, the Commission had started formal
infringement procedures against the nine Member States that had failed to notify transposition of the
Directive. These procedures have been dropped for those Member States that have communicated in the
meantime the adoption of implementation measures. In the case of Irleland, the infringement procedure
follows its course, and in the case of Luxembourg, the Commission action has led to this Member State
being condemned by the Court of Justice in ruling C-450/00.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2002/C 147 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of ‘journalistic purposes’ in the EU data protection directive

The EU data protection directive has caused a lot of legal headaches in Sweden. On 13 June 2001, it was
announced that the Supreme Court considered the home page of a defendant (Börje Ramsbro) to be of a
journalistic nature and hence not to be covered by the Swedish Personal Data Protection Act. Its judgment
therefore ran counter to earlier judgments delivered by the Stockholm District Court and the Svea Court of
Appeal, both of which took the view that data protection legislation had been infringed. The Data
Protection Inspectorate and the Prosecutor-General’s Office were also rebuffed for having misinterpreted
the Personal Data Protection Act. After two years of litigation, the Supreme Court cleared Börje Ramsbro,