WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/02 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Cost of food safety measures to producers.
Date: 2002-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, State aid, agro-industry, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, control of State aid, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, production cost, restriction on competition

C 205 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

about the benefits of EU membership. When Commissioner Verheugen assumed office the magazine was
abruptly discontinued. The Commission terminated the contract and had to pay the publisher a six-figure
sum as compensation for the fact that ‘European Dialogue’ would no longer be published.

How much compensation was paid?

How much had it previously cost to publish the magazine? Why were no attempts made to improve or
change the magazine’s quality and content?

If the magazine and its editorial staff were so bad and supposedly beyond correction that the publication
contract had to be terminated ahead of time, with the high compensation costs this entailed, why did the
magazine exist unchallenged for so long and at such great expense?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The quarterly magazine ‘European Dialogue’ published in the central and eastern European languages was
launched in 1995 under the responsibility of the former DG for Information, Culture and Communication
and was financed by the PHARE programme. Its objective was to provide basic and timely information on
the European Union. The publication appeared for four years at an annual cost of about EUR 600 000.
This first contract ran for the full term and the publication met the agreed objectives with a satisfactory
standard of quality.

At the end of the four-year period, an invitation to tender was published in August 1998 with a view to
concluding a new contract. As the company to be selected withdrew its tender following internal
restructuring, in line with usual practice the second best tender was accepted and the contract was signed
in 1999. The first issue of the new version, which appeared after some delay, proved to be of poorer
quality than the preceding one. The new enlargement DG, now responsible for the magazine following the
restructuring of the Commission, tried to explore with the publisher how the publication’s quality and
editorial line could be improved. After various initiatives to that end it became clear that the new partner
could not achieve the objectives of the new communication policy in the candidate countries, which was
based on the Commission delegations themselves taking charge of information tools for enlargement
preparation. Being present in the candidate countries, the delegations were in a better position to gear
information tools to the needs of the individual candidate countries, including in regard to language.

In the light of this new approach in its information strategy, the Commission’s Enlargement DG as
authorising officer decided to terminate the contract with the contractor in question and did so with a
compensatory payment of EUR 136 250.

(2002/C 205 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Cost of food safety measures to producers

The costs of Community measures taken in order to protect consumer health (tests for SRM and MBM) are
considerable. Does the Council not think that the failure to harmonise regulations relating to costs
incurred by the application of health measures taken at Community level lead to competition distortion
within the Single market?

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/73

Would the Council therefore agree that it is necessary for Community harmonisation for public funding to
cover these costs as an emergency measure to prevent them falling to producers and to prevent any
distortion of competition.

Reply

(21 May 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies provides for tests to be applied strictly in all the Member States. The Regulation does not
make provision for any financial
intervention from the Community budget. However, a Community
contribution of EUR 15 per test was decided on earlier under the Commission/Standing Veterinary
Committee procedure, by way of specific measures to deal with BSE. This contribution from the veterinary
fund is intended to cover the purchase of testing kits. Otherwise, the Member States take such measures as
they deem appropriate under their own administrative arrangements, with due regard for Community
rules.

Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal expressly provides that, unless stated otherwise, the EC Treaty articles on national aids affecting
competition (Articles 87, 88 and 89) are to apply to the production of and trade in beef and veal.
Specifically, this means that the Member States are under a duty to notify the Commission of any aid they
grant in the sector and that the Commission must decide whether that aid is compatible with the common
market.

However, the President of the Council emphasised early in January when the Presidency’s priorities were
submitted to the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture that in the interests of strict compliance
with the internal market rules, it would be a good idea for there to be increased harmonisation of the
various support measures which Member States had brought in to combat the effects of BSE. However, the
Council has not yet had the opportunity of giving its views on the matter, as the Commission has not
submitted any proposal on the subject.

(2002/C 205 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Cost of food safety measures to producers

The costs of Community measures taken in order to protect consumer health (tests for SRM and MBM) are
considerable. Does the Commission not think that the failure to harmonise regulations relating to costs
incurred by the application of health measures taken at Community level lead to competition distortion
within the Single market?

Would the Commission therefore agree that it is necessary for Community harmonisation for public
funding to cover these costs as an emergency measure to prevent them falling to producers and to prevent
any distortion of competition.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Differences in the level of public support to cover the considerable costs resulting from this legislation can
lead to distortions of competition. In order to avoid such distortions, the creation of a level playing field
via some kind of harmonisation may be required. However, the granting of public support for these costs
is only one way towards such a level playing field. Due to budgetary constraints, it is difficult to imagine