WRITTEN QUESTION E-0125/02 by Dorette Corbey (PSE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE)and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Trade barriers introduced in response to the BSE crisis, particularly in the applicant countries.
Date: 2002-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, enlargement of the Union, health legislation, import policy, trade restriction

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/147

There are three Member States apart from Italy in which a licence to drive a bus or coach may not be
renewed once the driver has reached a certain age: Portugal for drivers over 65, Finland for drivers over 70
and Luxembourg for drivers over 75. Full information about the other Member States is being sent directly
to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

In view of the complexity of the subject, which has been recognised by the Court of Justice (3),

3.
driving licences have to be harmonised gradually.

Even if the period of validity of licences is not yet harmonised, it should be pointed out that paragraph 4
regular medical
to the abovementioned Directive 91/439/EEC already provides for
of Annex III
examinations of drivers of heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches.
these
In a general manner,
examinations to a certain extent limit the period of validity of licences for these groups of drivers.

for a Directive amending
The Commission is currently considering the advisability of a proposal
Directive 91/439/EEC to include the introduction of a harmonised period of validity for all categories of
driving licence,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, in the framework of its future action
programme on road safety.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) Pursuant to Annex III, paragraph 4, of Directive 91/439/EEC.
(3) Case C-193/94 Skanavi, [1996] ECR I-00929, at paragraph 27.

(2002/C 172 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0125/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE)
and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Trade barriers introduced in response to the BSE crisis, particularly in the applicant countries

Since the outbreak of the BSE crisis, many non-member countries, including the applicant states, have
introduced trade barriers, for example against the import of breeding cattle and embryos.

1.

How many of these trade barriers still exist?

The European Commission’s classification of the geographical risks of BSE in the applicant states shows
that usually the risk is significant and comparable to that in the EU itself. Cases of BSE have already
occurred in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. These countries and Hungary have since started to
implement BSE prevention measures, while the other applicant countries are also preparing to take over
this part of the Community acquis.

Does the Commission not share the view that, in the light of this, the countries that want to join the

2.
Union in the near future should remove the trade barriers concerned?

3.

If so, what does the Commission intend to do about this situation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

1.
The restrictions imposed by third countries in late 2000 and early 2001 due the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) crisis in the Union remain largely intact. In general, these restrictions consist of
complete bans for imports from the Union of live cattle, beef and several other products of bovine origin.
In many cases, imports of bovine embryos are also banned. The import policies of the applicant countries
largely follow a similar line.

C 172 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

The Commission is of the opinion that the applicant countries, together with other third countries,
2.
should only apply scientifically justified BSE import regimes in line with the World Trade Organisation/
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (WTO/SPS) Agreement. In any case the applicant countries will have
to fully comply with the relevant Community legislation by latest on accession.

third
The Commission has frequently addressed the overly restrictive BSE import regimes of
3.
countries, including the applicant countries, during bilateral and multilateral contacts D such as in the SPS
Committee D with the relevant countries, insisting that import restrictions must be science-based and
comply with international standards. The Commission will continue to address this issue in future contacts
with these countries. In the context of the enlargement negotiations the applicant countries have to
commit themselves to align their import requirements with the Community legislation by accession at the
latest.

(2002/C 172 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Withholding of EAGGF subsidies

Producers in Greece have no option but to collect their EAGGF subsidies from the Agricultural Bank of
Greece (ATE). The bank asks producers for authorisation to withhold part of their subsidies to cover any
amounts that may be due to the bank or the farming cooperatives.

Although it appears that the aid is withheld with the consent of the beneficiaries, producers and their trade
unions have both made numerous complaints that consent is obtained essentially through coercion owing
to the beneficiaries’ financial dependence on the ATE and the farming cooperatives.

Both the Commission and the Court of Auditors have in fact decided on numerous occasions that no
amount of EAGGF aid may be withheld.

The Commission:

1. Does it consider that such indirect withholding of aid from producers by the ATE is consistent with its

decisions concerning payment in full of that aid? What action will it taken on this matter?

2. Are producers within their rights to refuse to sign the authorisation to withhold aid against current

and/or future debts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

1.
In respect of deductions of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
subsidies operated by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) to cover amounts due to the bank it should be
borne in mind that in case C-132/95 (1) the Court of Justice maintained the view that although it is true
that under Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support
system for producers of certain arable crops (2), the compensatory payments referred to therein are to be
paid over to the beneficiaries in their entirety, set-off between compensatory payment made under the
above-mentioned Regulation and outstanding debts payable to a Member State does not have the effect of
reducing the amount of the aid.

As regards deductions of EAGGF subsidies operated by the ATE to cover amounts due to the farming
cooperatives, the Commission is of the view that if Greek producers are not coerced by the Greek public
authorities into consenting that part of the EAGGF subsidies are withheld by the ATE for the purpose
mentioned, there is no conflict with Community law. In this connection it should be noted that the
Commission was informed by the Greek authorities that the deductions are made by the producer
organisations to their members following a decision of their general assemblies i.e. the deductions result
from a private relationship.