WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Transfer of Steffen Smidt.
Date: 2002-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, personnel administration

C 28 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

honey, casings, poultry meat, etc imported from some south eastern Asian countries and in particular from
China. In order to ensure that all Member States were taking the same action for such contaminated
consignments, and in the light of the Community legislation the issue was discussed with the Standing
Veterinary Committee on 19 December 2001. The following statement was entered in the minutes of the
Committee:

The Commission and the Member States agree that, following Article 5 of Council Regulation 2377/
90/EC (1), the presence of chloramphenicol, at whatever limit, in foodstuffs of animal origin constitutes
a hazard to the health of the consumer. Therefore all consignments found positive to the presence of
this antibiotic following a chemical test shall be destroyed in application of Article 22.2 of Council
Directive 97/78/EC (2).

The key elements of this statement are that:

1)

the Community has zero tolerance for the presence of chloramphenicol in food (and feed) products,
because of its highly toxic nature, (this zero tolerance is in conformity with the international rules
(Codex Alimentarius) on the matter),

2)

a confirmatory test is required before destruction is considered, and

3) Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC provides for no alternatives to seizure and destruction when a

danger to human or animal health is detected.

Assuming that the Netherlands acted in accordance with this statement, or the competent authority had
other reasons to believe that a consignment was likely to present a danger to human health, the action
would be in accordance with EU rules.

The Commission recalls that the Community allowed imports of Chinese products to continue, despite
finding chloramphenicol repeatedly in a high percentage of cases, and did not ban imports for a period of
over 5 months, until the results of a Community inspection revealed serious systemic problems in the
Chinese residue control system. During that time, China had ample time to investigate the matter and to
improve their system thus ensuring that consignments intended for export to the EU would be in
conformity with EU legislation. Moreover, a transitional period of 6 weeks was introduced, with intensified
testing, to overcome the problems of shipments already en route.
In contrast, China introduced an
the Netherlands after one interception of chloramphenicol. The
immediate ban on the whole of
Commission, in a letter from the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade to Minister Shi of
April 2002, expressed the Commission’s views and concerns regarding this course of action which seems
disproportionate. The issue will be raised bilaterally whenever appropriate in an effort to resolve the
situation and the Commission, if considered necessary, may take further steps within the framework of the
WTO.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment

of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of

veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2003/C 28 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Transfer of Steffen Smidt

Can the Commission state what happened over the weekend of 19-21 April 2002, given that Steffen Smidt
was not on the transfer list for Directors-General on 19 April, but appeared in the list on 22 April?

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/99

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the speech which I gave in my capacity as the
Commissioner responsible for Personnel and Administration to the Committee on Legal Affairs on 21 May
2002.

A copy of my 21 May statement is transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

Neither the Commission nor I are aware that anything relevant to Mr Smidt happened over the weekend of
19-21 April 2002.

Neither the Commission nor I are aware of the existence of anything called a ‘transfer list for Directors
General on 19 April 2002.’

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the 3rd point of the joint answer given to written
questions E-1430/02 from Mr Meijer and E-1563/02 from Mr Corbett (1).

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 122.

(2003/C 28 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1361/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Negotiations with the applicant countries in the area of justice and home affairs

1. With which applicant countries have negotiations on the chapter on justice and home affairs been
concluded, and with which applicant countries are negotiations still open?

Have any applicant countries requested transitional periods for the chapter on justice and home

2.
affairs?

3.

If so, for which areas were transitional periods requested?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Justice and Home Affairs chapter has been provisionally closed with Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

None of the countries requested transitional periods.

Negotiations are still open with Bulgaria, Poland and Romania.

(2003/C 28 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Pakistani ‘blasphemy’ law

Two men are currently being held in Pakistani prisons accused under the ‘blasphemy’ law. The first man,
Mr Parvez Masih, has reportedly been tortured and is under constant threat of further violence.