WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/02 by Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission. Regional aid to combat blue tongue.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sardinia, State aid, animal disease, cattle, indemnification, livestock farming, regional aid, sheep, slaughter of animals

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/153

It prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, except that employment may be
vocational training.
terminated when an employee reaches the age of 65, the age at which people become eligible for a general
State old age pension.

Is the Commission aware of amendment 28170 no 9, an amendment to the above bill, which has
2.
been tabled in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament? Its purpose is to allow employees aged under 65
to have their employment terminated on grounds of age if the parties to a collective agreement so agree. It
does not provide for any check as to whether this is objectively justified.

3. Would such a provision be permitted under Directive 2000/78/EC?

If the Lower House adopts the amendment, will the Commission in due course call the Netherlands

4.
to account?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

The Commission is aware of the draft Dutch legislative bill 28170 for an ‘Equal Treatment on Grounds of
Age in Employment Act’ to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing
a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Commission is also aware of
amendment 28170 no 9 tabled by the Dutch Parliament to the above bill, to allow employees aged under
65 to have their employment terminated on grounds of age if the parties to a collective agreement so
agree.

The Commission would like to recall that Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose the
requirements of the Directive 2000/78/EC into national law, with the option for an additional period of
three years from December 2003 for the provisions on age (and disability). The Commission will examine
the transposition of the Directive in all Member States with a view to ensuring full conformity with
Community law.

As far as the issue raised by the Honourable Member is concerned it should be noted that a reference to
retirement age appears only in the recitals of Directive 2000/78/EC and that there is no corresponding
provision in the body of the text. The Court of Justice might therefore apply the general principle of non-
discrimination on grounds of age to questions of retirement. This means that differences of treatment
based on age will have to be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, with the means of
achieving that aim being appropriate and necessary.

(2003/C 110 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/02

by Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Regional aid to combat blue tongue

By the decision published in the Official Journal (1), the Commission announced that it was initiating a
formal investigation procedure concerning the aid which the Sardinian regional authorities were proposing
to grant following an outbreak of blue tongue disease on the island (aid N 775/2000, now C 5/2001).

However, it endorsed Article 4 of the law relating to the aid, whereby compensation was to be paid to
sheep and cattle farmers (the latter animals are healthy carriers) for the additional cost incurred in the
purchase of fodder, since animals could not be taken to pasture.

C 110 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

In its decision the Commission took the view that the two aid measures provided for (to offset income lost
owing to the slaughter of animals and higher feed costs for stockbreeders) could fall under the definition of
losses within the meaning of point 11.4 of the guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector and thus be
considered compatible with the Treaty.

The regional authorities later notified a further provision confined to cattle farmers (aid N 662/2001), the
purpose of which was to offset the additional cost of feeding and tending animals resulting from the
movement ban.

In response to this new notification, the Commission has stated that compensation for producers can make
reasonable provision to offset the loss entailed in the difficulty of replacing stock. It follows that aid may
be granted if, and only if, stock is slaughtered and subsequently replaced, whereas it is no longer deemed
admissible to compensate cattle farmers for higher rearing costs.

Given that the guidelines were not altered in the time between the adoption of the decision concerning aid
N 775/2000 and the notification of aid N 662/2001, could the Commission explain its change of attitude,
especially bearing in mind that its decisions are legally binding?

(1) OJ C 327, 22.11.2001, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

By letter SG (2001) D/285817 of 2 February 2001, the Commission has approved a compensation for
farmers who were prohibited, following a public order, from moving sheep, goats, bovine animals and
buffalo from holdings until epidemiological conditions, due to the spreading of the Blue Tongue disease,
would improve (article 4 of the Regional Law of 25 October 2000). The aid was part of a comprehensive
plan for the eradication and prevention of the spreading of the Blue Tongue disease, following the
restrictions of animal movement in the Region, adopted after the publication of the Ministerial Decree of
28 August 2000.

The sudden spreading of the Blue Tongue disease and its impact on the animal population had caused
serious damages to the farmers who were facing a difficult situation, resulting also from the almost
concomitant drought. The aid to compensate for extra feeding and maintenance costs for the bovine and
the ovine sectors, referred to a period of one year and of limited amount, was considered acceptable by the
Commission, as part of a more general aid scheme to compensate for the damages that the unexpected
spreading of the epidemics had determined on the animal breeding sector.

The Regional Decree 29/10 of 4 September 2001, proposing an aid to compensate for the extra costs of
food and animal maintenance, generated by the retention in the farms of calves normally sent to the north
of Italy to be fed and slaughtered, does not seem to be justifiable on the basis of point 11.4 of the
Community Guidelines for state aid in the agricultural sector (1). The condition for granting compensation
under said point, i.e. the slaughtering of the animals and the consequent re-stocking of the farms, is, in
fact, not met. The aid, providing for a substantial increase in the budget for extra feeding and maintenance
costs concerns only the bovine sector,
in which no direct losses, due to the slaughtering of animals
following the implementation of a public order, has occurred.

The regional authorities have not indicated, up to now, under which other legal basis they assume this aid
could be assessed. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission has raised doubts on the
compatibility of the aid in question with the Community rules on competition. No final decision has been
taken by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, as modified by OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.