WRITTEN QUESTION P-2537/02 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Date: 2002-09-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European company, United States, audit, closing of accounts, management accounting, stock-exchange listing, subsidiary

C 28 E/246

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Growth hormones in dairy cattle

When does the current EU moratorium on the use of growth hormones in dairy cattle expire?

Does the Commission intend to renew this moratorium?

What is the current position of the US Administration and World Trade Organisation on this matter?

Will the Commission please formally restate the reasons for the position it takes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

It is assumed that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the previous moratorium on the use of
bovine somatotrophin (BST) which was replaced by a formal prohibition on its use under the provisions of
Council Decision 1999/879/EC of 17 December 1999 concerning the placing on the market and
administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/EEC (1). The prohibition of
the use of BST laid down in this Decision has no time limit.

Decision 1999/879/EC does not apply to food and animals imported from third countries. Consequently
neither the United States nor other members of the World Trade Organisation have raised this issue.

Decision 1999/879/EC was proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council in order to protect
animal health and welfare, following the opinion the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare of 10 March 1999. The Committee concluded that BST should not be used in dairy cows because
it increases the risk of clinical mastitis as well as the duration of treatment of mastitis, it increases the
incidence of foot and leg disorders, it can induce severe reactions at the injection site and it can adversely
affect reproduction. These effects, some of which are both painful and debilitating, lead to poorer animal
welfare and greater animal morbidity.

The Commission has no plans to review this decision.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2537/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 September 2002)

Subject: Sarbanes-Oxley Act

What response is the European Commission considering to the US authorities’ decision to apply the full
financial reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on European companies listed in the US stock
exchange? Since this represents an unjustified extraterritorial extension of US domestic regulations which
will prove costly to European companies, what retaliation is being considered by the EU? In addition what
action is being considered by the European Commission in light of the full force of the regulatory
authority of the Public Accounting Oversight Board (cid:1) established by Sarbanes-Oxley (cid:1) being applied to
European accounting firms who audit a foreign subsidiary of a listed US company?

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/247

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Like the Honourable Member,
the Commission is concerned about the far-reaching effects that the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act might have on Community companies which are listed in the United States, on the
foreign subsidiaries of United States companies and on Community auditors. The Commission under-
stands, however, that, through the implementing rules to be adopted by the United States’ Securities and
Exchange Commission, there could be room to grant certain exemptions for foreign accounting firms.
Concerning foreign issuers, the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission has only limited
exemptive authority; however there might be room for applying the implementing measures in a manner
compatible with foreign issuers’ home country laws and practices.

In the framework of existing arrangements based on co-operation between regulators, the Commission will
pursue its dialogue with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission at political and at
technical level with a view to ensuring as little duplication as possible in terms of corporate governance
and accounting requirements between the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Community law. It is not in the interest
of anyone that the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission proposes measures unilaterally
regulating foreign companies and audit firms unnecessarily.

(2003/C 28 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Dyke-strengthening projects in the district of Sliedrecht following further postponement of a

decision and the Commission’s reply to oral question

In its reply of 3 September 2002 to my oral question H-0578/02 (1) concerning dyke sections in
Sliedrecht, the Commission does not give any plausible reason for the very slow processing of this case.

It merely repeats that ‘at present’
Netherlands to the Commission’s reasoned opinion of 26 July 2001.
Commission received this detailed reply as long ago as 11 October 2001.

it is still studying the detailed reply from the Government of the
the

I would point out

that

Is the Commission aware that this matter concerns decision-making on the strengthening of a dyke which
has already been postponed several times because of intervention by the Commission?

Is the Commission aware that any further delay in the decision-making on the dyke-strengthening could
result in a dangerous situation?

Is the Commission aware that the confidence of members of the public, who had been relying on active
intervention by the Commission, is proving seriously misplaced in view of the delay in dealing with this
matter?

(1) Written reply of 3.9.2002.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that its original concerns in this matter
impact
principally related to the adequacy of Dutch legislation on the need for an environmental
assessment of dyke projects pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). In the course of the ongoing
infringement procedure,
the Netherlands adopted new legislation in this area. According to the
Commission, this new legislation constitutes a more satisfactory basis for determining the need for an
environmental impact assessment for dyke projects.