WRITTEN QUESTION P-0878/02 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission. Violation of Decision 2000/766/EC (ban on processed animal protein).
Date: 2002-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, animal protein, customs regulations, export monitoring, export restriction, infringement of EU law

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/231

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The Commission would like to refer to its reply to written question E-0051/02 by Alexander de Roo (1).

In addition, the Commission wishes to point out that the study on sweetener intake and exposure among
Swedish diabetics commissioned by the Swedish Food Administration is based on the use levels of
cyclamate as laid down in the Community legislation. The results, although based on the former
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), do therefore already reflect the situation after 1999, when the ban on the
use of cyclamate in Sweden was withdrawn, and include thus its use in fruit juices and soft drinks.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.

(2002/C 205 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0878/02

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Subject: Violation of Decision 2000/766/EC (ban on processed animal protein)

Council Decision 2000/766/EC (1) required Member States to ban both exports and imports of processed
animal protein for feeding to farm animals intended for the production of food. In Decision 2001/9/EC (2),
the Commission required Member States to monitor compliance with this ban in certain specified ways.

Despite these measures, there are now reports that processed animal protein has been exported via ports in
Belgium and the Netherlands to Brazil, where it has been used to feed chickens which were subsequently
exported to the EU for sale as food.

Can the Commission confirm or deny these reports? If they are true, what has the Commission done to
put a halt to this? If they are false, how has the Commission ascertained this?

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Article 3 (2) of Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures
required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures
with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (1) (known as
the extended feed ban) prohibits the export of processed animal proteins provided they are destined for
uses prohibited by the feed ban. Therefore, processed animal proteins can not be exported when intended
for use in feed intended for farmed animals which are kept, fattened or bred for the production of meat
such as broilers. A Member State may export processed animal proteins for other purposes such as pet
food production or incineration, provided that a bilateral agreement with the third country is made prior
to exportation, which includes an undertaking from the third country to respect the final use and not to
re-export the product for prohibited uses. Member States which allow such exportation shall inform the
Commission and the other Member States of all terms and conditions as agreed with the third country
concerned in the context of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Animal Health.

The Commission has reminded the Member States of these obligations on several occasions. Also, the
control of the production, use, destruction and exportation of processed animal proteins is one of the key
issues monitored during missions of the Food and Veterinary Office in Member States.

C 205 E/232

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Additionally, the Commission recently carried out a questionnaire survey to monitor, amongst other
things, the disposal of processed animal protein. The survey revealed that some Member States were
exporting processed animal protein to third countries for incineration or for use in pet food. These
exportations were all in accordance with Article 3 (2) of Decision 2001/9/EC. None of the Member States
informed the Commission about exportation of processed animal proteins to Brazil. If the Honourable
Member has information indicating such export to Brazil, she is kindly invited to forward this information
to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(2002/C 205 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Commission action following the ECJ judgment in Case C-1/00 of 13.12.2001

What measures, if any, is the Commission taking following the judgment of 13 December 2001 of the
European Court of Justice in Case C-1/00 Commission v France (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its
obligations ? Refusal to end the ban on British beef and veal)?

In the light of the continuing illegal French ban on British beef, has the Commission initiated the
procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty which would lead to its being able to specify the fine that
France would have to pay.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission, not having received satisfactory assurances from the French Government concerning its
compliance with the Court’s judgement, has opened the procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty. The
letter of formal notice under the relevant procedure giving France 30 days to submit its observations was
sent to that Member State on 21 March 2002. A reply was issued by the French authorities on 19 April
and is currently under consideration.

The question of a lump sum or penalty payment referred to in Article 228(2) only becomes relevant at a
later stage in the proceedings, namely if after failure of the Member State concerned to comply with the
Commission’s reasoned opinion the Commission brings the case before the Court of Justice.

In such a case the Commission is required to specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty which it
considers appropriate. The final decision on whether or not to impose the lump sum or penalty and its
amount rests with the Court.

(2002/C 205 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Official language in Italy

The Italian Parliament is currently considering a proposal to amend the constitution by declaring Italian
the official language of the Republic. This would end a tradition of protecting and safeguarding other
official languages in part of the territory of the Italian republic and runs counter to the country’s linguistic
riches.