WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Vaccination with a marker vaccine in place of preventive slaughter of healthy animals in the next outbreak of swine fever.
Date: 2002-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal plague, disease prevention, epidemic, research programme, slaughter of animals, swine, testing, vaccination, vaccine

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/93

the contractor and transfer it to the German tax authorities. This is intended as an advance payment
towards any corporation tax, income tax and/or turnover tax which may be due in Germany.

In the Commission’s reply of 21 December 2001 to my question of 22 October 2001 (E-2875/01 (1)) on
this subject, the Commission stated that it would examine whether the actual application of this new law
led to indirect discrimination against foreign companies. It also said that if necessary the Commission
would take the requisite steps to eliminate measures that were incompatible with the EC Treaty.

Since then I have again heard from those concerned that foreign companies are being required to comply
with requirements different from those applicable to German companies in order to obtain exemptions
from the advance tax deduction requirement.
In practice, building firms which do not obtain these
exemptions are simply no longer able to secure any contracts in Germany.

introduced by
Since 21 December 2001, has the Commission examined whether the requirement
Germany to deduct 15 % tax at source is (in practice) resulting in indirect discrimination against foreign
companies? If so, what are its findings?

Do the rules which are in force in Germany contravene European legislation, and ought measures therefore
to be taken?

If so, what will the Commission do about this?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The Commission is waiting for the co-ordinated implementation rules, agreed and about to be adopted by
the Länder, before deciding whether or not to intervene on legal grounds, in particular under Article 49 of
the EC Treaty (free provision of services). In particular, the formalities with which foreign enterprises have
to comply must not be disproportionate. If the Honourable Member knows of specific incidents of alleged
incompatibility with Community rules, the Commission would like to be informed of the details.

According to information received from the German authorities, about 600 000 certificates allowing
exemption from the 15 % tax deduction have been delivered to German enterprises. The same source states
that around 10 000 foreign enterprises have applied for this certificate, the granting of which has been
refused in only a few cases.

(2003/C 52 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Vaccination with a marker vaccine in place of preventive slaughter of healthy animals in the next

outbreak of swine fever

1.
Does the Commission recall that after the outbreak of swine fever in the Netherlands in the spring of
1997 11 million pigs were preventively killed and destroyed in order to prevent any further spread of the
disease, and that the cost of this procedure, which caused great public indignation, was EUR 1,35 billion of
Community funds?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the transportation and temporary storage of 180 million kilos of the
unusable carcasses of slaughtered animals, with dung, urine and blood leaking from lorries in the process,
may have been a contributory cause to the further spread of the disease?

C 52 E/94

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Is it correct that the only valid reason for not carrying out preventive vaccination since 1992 against
3.
swine fever and other list-A animal diseases in the EU Member States was that a marker vaccine, which
allows a clear distinction to be made, for purposes of meat inspection prior to export, between meat from
affected pigs and that of vaccinated pigs, was not yet available?

Can the Commission confirm the

4.
in the Netherlands TV programme Dokwerk
(VPRO, Nederland 3, Peel, pest en politiek, part 2) of 26 May 2002 that at the time of this epidemic the
firm Intervet had a marker vaccine available, but that it could not be used because it had not yet been
registered and recognised by the Commission, although the firm currently has a supply sufficient to carry
out preventive vaccination of 18 to 20 million pigs?

report

5.
Has a field test been carried out with the Intervet vaccine in the meantime? If not, why not?
When will the test be completed? What is the Commission doing to ensure that a final result becomes
available as early as possible?

6. What else is there to prevent the use of a marker vaccine, and hence the final abandonment of mass
preventive slaughter and destruction of healthy animals, in preparing for the next outbreak of swine fever?

7. What is the Commission doing to ensure that when the next outbreak of swine fever occurs
preventive slaughter is not once again used instead of vaccination, although there is now no public
support for this approach, there are fewer and fewer people who are willing to carry out the task, and
FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf has condemned it?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

1. and 2.
The experience gained in relation to the serious epidemic of classical swine fever in the
Netherlands in 1997-1998 was taken into full consideration by the Commission in its proposal for a
Council Directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (CSF) (1). However, the
Commission wishes to clarify that the cost for the Community budget of this epidemic amounts to about
50 % of the figure given by the Honourable Member.

3.
Vaccination against certain animal diseases may ‘mask’ the presence of a virus in a vaccinated
population and lead to the further spread of disease in non-vaccinated animals. This is one of the reasons
for stopping generalised preventive vaccination against classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease in
the early 90s. Marker vaccines may be a helpful tool to overcome this problem and lead to new
possibilities in trading animal products from areas where vaccination has been applied.

4. to 6.
The Commission cannot confirm that a marker vaccine against classical swine fever was
available in 1997. In recent years two companies have developed new vaccines which, in principle, might
be successfully used as marker vaccines as they only induce immunity against one of the classical swine
fever virus proteins. In 1999, in the framework of the preparation of its proposal on classical swine fever,
the Commission financed a trial to test these two vaccines and the corresponding discriminatory tests.

This trial indicated that the efficacy of these two vaccines might be sufficient to reduce the spread of virus
in an emergency situation. However, the diagnostic tests available were not suitable to distinguish the
vaccinated but infected animals from the non-infected ones. The results of this trial have been forwarded to
the two companies in question and are available upon request.

These two vaccines have obtained authorisation for marketing in accordance with Community legislation
but, at present, they cannot be used as marker vaccines. However, in the light of the results of this trial,
the approach to vaccination and the potential use of marker vaccines proposed by the Commission was
supported by the Parliament and by the Council which,
in October 2001, adopted Council Directive
2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (2). In
accordance with this Directive the use of these vaccines as marker vaccines would be possible in an
emergency situation if reliable discriminatory tests become available.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/95

The Commission is aware that massive slaughtering of animals in relation to classical swine fever or
7.
other animal diseases raises ethical questions. Therefore, it has undertaken a number of actions to ensure
improved disease prevention and control.

These actions include:

(cid:1) further research into the International Office of Epizootics (OIE)

list A diseases supported by
successive Research Framework Programmes. In the 5th Framework Programme research for the
development of marker vaccines is clearly marked as a priority in the ‘Quality of Life and Management
of Living Resources Programme’, in particular in Key Action 2 ‘Control of Infectious Diseases’. Two
projects are currently on-going aiming at the development of a marker vaccine for CSF: the Research
and Technological Development
‘Immunological
mechanisms of protection against classical swine fever virus:
towards the development of new
efficacious marker vaccines’ (EUR 1 million); and the RTD project QLRT-2000-01346 (2001-2004)
‘Identification of efficacious delivery systems for recombinant and nucleic acid construct vaccines
against classical swine fever virus’ (EUR 1,57 million).

(RTD) project QLRT-2000-01374 (2001-2004)

(cid:1) the request to the Scientific Committee to provide a report on newly developed techniques for the
diagnosis of contagious animal diseases and on the use of these techniques to reduce and avoid the
slaughter and destruction of non-infected animals;

(cid:1) the authorisation granted to Germany by Commission Decision 2002/161/EC of 22 February 2002
approving the plans submitted by Germany for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs in
Saarland and the emergency vaccination against classical swine fever in feral pigs in Rhineland-Pfalz
and Saarland (3), the control of which is particularly difficult in some areas of the Community taking
into account that infected wild boar is currently the most dangerous source of virus for the domestic
pig.

The forthcoming proposal for a Council Directive on foot and mouth disease will provide the opportunity
for a revised EU-wide consensus on the future approach towards future outbreaks of this disease, including
the role of vaccination and preventive slaughter.

(1) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.
(2) OJ L 316, 1.12.2001.
(3) Commission Decision 2002/161/EC, OJ L 53, 23.2.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1722/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Conservation of rivers

It is important to conserve rivers, lakes and all watercourses. In Rome, for example, the Tiber, which is of
great historic and environmental value to the city, is being neglected and has serious problems connected
with water management, town planning and the environment, which in the last few decades have led to a
serious level of pollution and general deterioration and prevent it from being enjoyed to the full by the
population.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether there are any programmes to safeguard and enhance the role of rivers;

2. whether steps can be taken in situations such as that affecting the river Tiber;

3. what its opinion is on the subject?