WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transmission of livestock diseases from potential sources of infection in new Member States to livestock in the present Member States.
Date: 2002-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, accession to the European Union, agricultural trade, animal disease, animal plague, customs cooperation, customs regulations, foot-and-mouth disease, health risk, intra-EU trade, livestock, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

C 205 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

annulment of this directive (case C-377/98). Thus the Netherlands must comply with its obligations with
regard to European legislation. However, the Dutch legislature (the Lower House of Parliament) has so far
refused to transpose the directive into national law, despite the fact that this should have been done by
30 July 2000. This is very detrimental to existing and new biotech companies in the Netherlands and
Europe at large.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What measures will the Commission take to hold the Netherlands to its European obligations,
particularly its duty to swiftly and completely transpose the above directive?

3. Which other Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the difficulties encountered in some
Member States in implementing Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

1.
The Commission is fully aware of the fact that Directive 98/44/EC has not been implemented in
some Member States. The Commission would like to echo the comments made by the Honourable
Member regarding the binding obligation upon Member States to immediately transpose this Directive,
especially since the deadline for transposition has long since expired. In addition, any ambiguity there may
have been about the legality of this Directive has been dispelled following the Court of Justice’s rejection
on 9 October 2001 of the application for the annulment of the Directive.

2.
The Commission would like to point out that a letter of formal notice was sent on 30 November
2000 to those Member States which had not, at that time, transposed Directive 98/44/EC. It should be
noted that the next stage in this procedure is to send a reasoned opinion on account of a failure to notify
national transposition measures.

To date, five Member States have transposed Directive 98/44/EC: Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Finland

3.
and the United Kingdom.

(2002/C 205 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Transmission of livestock diseases from potential sources of infection in new Member States to

livestock in the present Member States

1.
Can the Commission confirm the belief expressed by farmers’ organisations that such familiar
livestock diseases as swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease are more widespread in the candidate
countries on the continent than in the present Member States, so that the risk of healthy livestock
becoming infected is also greater?

2.
Does the Commission, like these organisations, fear that the elimination of obstacles to transport of
and trade in meat and live animals at the existing eastern external border of the EU will result in a greater
spread of animal diseases in the existing Member States?

3.
Does the Commission anticipate a big increase in sales of livestock and meat from the new eastern
Member States, where production costs are low because of their low wages? What percentage of the
existing market are they likely to acquire?

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/165

In the accession negotiations, is provision already being made for the long-term continuation of strict

4.
monitoring for animal diseases at the existing eastern border, even after it becomes an internal border?

5. Will monitoring of the transportation of livestock and meat across the new, more easterly, external
borders with states which belonged to the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia be stepped up? If
so, how?

6. What powers will Member States retain to protect livestock in their territory against the transmission
of diseases due to imports of livestock and meat from areas of possible infection?

7. What will the Commission do to ensure that the consumption of meat and fattening of livestock
always occur as close as possible to the place of origin, so that the volume of transport remains limited
and livestock diseases cannot spread over long distances?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

1. With regard to familiar livestock diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever,
the position in the applicant countries is no worse than in the Community.

Indeed, out of all the Member States and applicant countries, only four Member States have over the last
five years had their status of ‘FMD-free without vaccination’ withdrawn by the International Organisation
on Animal Health following the occurrence of this disease on their territory. Over the same period,
although five applicant countries gave notification of classical swine fever, there were also occurrences in
seven Member States. The situation as regards other major diseases is no different from that prevailing
within the Community.

The Commission therefore considers that the animal health status and veterinary policies of the respective
applicant countries do not currently pose a special threat to the Member States in terms of livestock
diseases.

The Commission is working in concert with the applicant countries to ensure that they incorporate
2.
the Communiuty acquis into their legislation and thereby apply the same procedures and requirements for
preventing the occurrence of livestock diseases and, where necessary, for preventing their spread between
different regions in the Community.

3.
On the basis of the available data concerning the production potential of enterprises operating in
accordance with Community provisions, the Commission does not expect any increase in the amount of
beef and pork supplied by the future Member States.

Given the level of demand in some of the current Member States, an increase in the number of live
animals cannot be ruled out following the applicant countries’ accession.

The Commission confirms that

the current requirements concerning the health protection of
4.
livestock in the Member States are included in the accession negotiations as part of the Communiuty
acquis with the aim of ensuring compliance with the provisions in force which serve as the basis for the
creation of a European internal market without frontiers.

The Commission is collaborating with the applicant countries for the purpose of setting up border
5.
inspection posts meeting Community requirements on the joint frontiers with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldavia, Croatia, the former Yugoslavia and Turkey. Thus, assuming that all the applicant countries join
the EU, 67 posts will be set up on the European Union’s new frontiers.

6.
In order to prevent the occurrence of disease within its territory or limit the spread of possible
infection, the Comunity applies regulatory measures aimed at reducing health risks. With this in mind,
animals and their products may only be imported or traded within the Community under conditions
providing all the necessary health safeguards. All these measures form part of the Community acquis
which must be adopted by the applicant countries.

C 205 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

In the context of structural policy, there are a number of rural development measures which can be
7.
taken with a view to encouraging the production and sale of local products. Furthermore, where diseases
occur, Community provisions already impose restrictions on the movement of animals and their products.

(2002/C 205 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0577/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Illegal imports of domestic animals into the European Union

According to newspaper reports, a large number of domestic animals have been imported illegally into the
European Union in recent years, mainly from eastern Europe. These animals are then sold on without
complying with basic health and hygiene standards, leading to an increase in animal mortality and health
hazards for consumers.

What measures will the Commission take in future to halt this illegal trade and enhance the quality of life
of domestic animals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The health conditions applying to live animals imported into the territory of the Community are laid down
in various Council directives.

With regard to cats and dogs, which seem to be the main focus of the question, these conditions are laid
down in Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing
trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal
health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/
EEC (1), particularly in its Articles 10 and 16.

The general principles governing checks to be carried out on these animals when they enter the territory
of the EU are also set out in Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles
governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries
and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (2). This Directive particularly states
that animals should be subject to systematic checks at the point of entry into the Community, at a border
inspection post.

terms, whilst

In general
its
implementation is the responsibility of the authorities in the Member States. It is therefore up to the
national authorities to ensure the correct implementation of the Community rules in force, and to take all
necessary measures to tackle illegal imports and fraud.

the initiative for Community legislation lies with the Commission,

It would be useful for the Commission to have more detailed information on the circumstances of the
illegal imports being reported here so that it can properly look into whether the Member States concerned
are complying with the obligations to which they are subject.

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.