WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/02 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Imports of Argentinean beef.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Argentina, beef, common commercial policy, customs regulations, import (EU), import policy

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/147

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

From the summary information that the Honourable Member has provided about a wind farm in
1.
Germany near the Dutch municipality of Bellingwolde, firstly, the Commission sees no indication that
either the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds), or the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) may apply in this situation.

2. Moreover, there seem to be no particular indications for the Commission that the windfarm project
might be subject to the Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (1).

3.
On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to
give an assessment as to whether there exists a failure to comply with Community legislation. The
Commission will examine any supplementary information that the Honourable Member may provide in
this context.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Imports of Argentinean beef

Is the Commission aware that, for some weeks now, large amounts of Argentinean beef have, once

1.
again, been appearing on the European market and, in particular, on the German market?

2.

On what scientific basis have the import restrictions on Argentinean beef been relaxed?

3. What measures is the Commission taking to offset the deterioration in marketing conditions for
European producers that has resulted from the increase in beef imports?

4.
Should not the long-term objective be to cover demand for foodstuffs on the European market
principally with products produced in the EU Member States (on grounds of better traceability, quality, a
higher level of food safety, better control mechanisms and shorter transport routes)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Imports of beef, sheep and goat meat were immediately prohibited from the whole of
1. and 2.
Argentina as of 14 March 2001 following notification of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) by
Commission Decision 2001/276/EC of 4 April 2001 amending Decision 93/402/EEC concerning animal
health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries to
take account of the animal health situation in Argentina (1).

Following a Food and Veterinary Office inspection and guarantees provided by the Argentinean Veterinary
Authorities the import for human consumption of matured and de-boned beef meat excluding offal was
authorised from certain regions of Argentina by Commission Decision 2002/45/EC of 22 January 2002
amending Decision 93/402/EEC (2). These imports were only resumed from regions without outbreaks

C 301 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

which fulfill the criteria to be free of FMD (with vaccination). This was agreed at the Standing Veterinary
Committee held on 16 January 2002 and came into effect as of the 1 February 2002.

Argentina can export in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)-quota ‘high quality beef’
on a yearly basis from 1 July to 30 June 28 000 tonnes of this product to the Community. However
because of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 2001, Argentina could only start to export in the
framework of
the quota-year 2001/2002 from beginning of February 2002 after the prohibition
concerning foot-and-mouth disease was lifted. Therefore, for obvious reasons much more beef from
Argentina was imported in the spring of 2002 than during the same period the years before.

3.

Current producer prices reported to the Commission do not show a particular deterioration.

In the management of the market the Community has to comply with the obligations taken under

4.
multilateral trade agreements, e.g. preferential import of high quality beef.

(1) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 20, 23.1.2002.

(2002/C 301 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: The infringement proceedings formally notified to the UK Government in October 2001 in respect

of the issue of Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use

Whereas in 1992 the UK Parliament enacted the Planning and Compensation Act which purportedly
altered the UK law relating to town and country planning and the environmental provisions previously
reported to the Commission (in compliance with Art. 16 of the Waste Framework Directive):

Can the Commission say what steps it is taking:

1.

2.

to bring to a speedy conclusion the infringement proceedings formally notified to the UK Government
in October 2001 in respect of the issue of Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use for the purposes
of the town and country planning system and the protection of the environment where the use
certified as lawful involves the uncontrolled transportation and deposit of waste?

to ensure that any damage to the environment in the UK caused by such uncontrolled transportation
and deposit of waste that has been declared lawful by the UK Government since 1992 is remedied
without delay?

3. with respect to the complaint made to the Commission on 21 November 2001 by Mr Martin Philcox,
a citizen of the UK, that the UK had infringed Art. 234 of the Treaty by failing to ensure that where a
question as to the interpretation of the EC Waste Framework Directive was raised before a UK court
against whose decision there was no judicial remedy under UK law, that court failed to bring the
matter before the Court of Justice?

4.

to remind the UK of its strict obligation to report to the Commission all legislation enacted by the UK
Parliament which purports to vary the legislative provisions previously reported to the Commission as
implementing EC Directives?