WRITTEN QUESTION P-3267/02 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission. Chicken imports from third countries.
Date: 2002-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, customs inspection, foodstuffs legislation, import (EU), poultry, veterinary legislation

C 110 E/196

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

How does the Commission intend to persuade the Council and the Heads of State or Government to
comply with the functional criteria set by the Commission itself and the European Parliament when taking
their decision?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Commission regrets that the Council has not been able to conclude on the seat of the Authority. It
also regrets that the absence of a decision has led the Parliament to place a substantial proportion of the
Authority’s budget in reserve until a solution to the seat question is found. These negative elements clearly
three institutions. The
inhibit
uncertainty in relation to the seat has an adverse effect on the ability to recruit and retain the highly
qualified and experienced personnel on whom the Authority’s success will ultimately depend. It also creates
practical difficulties resulting from the need to establish a temporary location.

the Authority, an objective shared by all

the rapid establishment of

In accordance with the wishes of the Council, the Commission has taken the necessary steps for the
Authority to begin operations in Brussels. It has undertaken the necessary preparatory work to provide the
Authority with its essential basic administrative and technical infrastructure.

The decision on the Seat is ultimately a matter for the Council. The Commission has stated on many
occasions that it believes that the seat of the European Food Safety Authority should be determined on the
basis of its operational needs. The Commission therefore considers that it should have a central location to
facilitate easy exchange between the risk assessor, risk manager and with other stakeholders throughout
the Community. It is also important that the Authority is easily and rapidly accessible to the large number
of voluntary scientists from all over the Union who will regularly attend meetings to establish the
European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) scientific advice.

(2003/C 110 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3267/02

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Chicken imports from third countries

The chicken-producing sector is of particular importance to the Catalan agro-foods industry, accounting
for a large part of total agricultural output, and employing a wide-range of services including brooder
houses, farms, slaughterhouses, waste facilities, processors and service and distribution companies.

Catalan chicken production annually accounts for 173 million birds and almost 300 000 tonnes, over one
third of total Spanish production.

One of the EU’s major objectives has always been and continues to be guaranteeing the safety of food
production, in order to eliminate all health risks to consumers. The relevant Community regulations are
for that reason extremely demanding in terms of animal feed, residues of medical products administered,
and conditions governing the handling and use of food products.

Current EU imports of frozen processed chicken from third countries are not insignificant; available data
indicate that over 200 000 tonnes were imported by the EU in 2001, mainly from Brazil and Thailand.

These imported products too must meet the health guarantees laid down by the EU for home-produced
chicken.

What control mechanisms exist on the Member States’ external frontiers to guarantee that chicken imports
from third countries comply with Community health legislation?

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/197

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Community legislation lays down equivalent requirements for Community production of poultry meat and
imports of such meat from third countries in order to ensure food safety. Accordingly, there are not two
levels of protection, but only one. Border checks are the responsibility of the Member States. The
Commission conducts inspections periodically in order to monitor compliance with Community legislation
by the competent authorities of the Member States at the Community’s border posts and by the competent
authorities of third countries at all stages of the production and processing of chicken meat. Cases of
contamination of chicken meat with residues of veterinary medicines prohibited by Community legislation
(nitrofurans) have been notified to the Commission by the Member States through the Community rapid
alert system. In order to guarantee the safety of imported chicken meat, the Commission has decided to
have the Member States conduct systematic checks for residues of medicines, and especially nitrofurans, in
all imports of poultry meat from Brazil and Thailand. Whenever these checks produce negative results, the
Member States must destroy the dangerous batch. At the same time, the Commission is providing
technical assistance to developing countries in order to help them to set up a system of control that is as
effective as that developed by the Member States. In this way, the Commission is meeting its obligations to
developing countries while maintaining the level of protection of European consumers.

(2003/C 110 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3269/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Free movement of services and persons with reference to attending private denominational schools

in a Member State other than the Member State of origin

Although the free movement of persons, services and capital is written into the EC Treaty, there are still
some areas where this freedom is still out of the question. For example, students from North Rhine
Westphalia, who want to attend a private denominational school in another Member State, in this case the
Netherlands, frequently encounter major problems because North Rhine Westphalia does not permit
students to complete their compulsory education abroad.

Can the Commission say whether the provisions on freedom to provide services and freedom of
establishment for cross-border activities apply to the attendance, establishment and maintenance of private
denominational schools, even if they are predominantly State funded?

Is it compatible with the freedom to provide services and the general ban on discrimination under
Article 12 of the EC Treaty (which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality), for students
from one Member State to be prohibited from attending a non-vocational private denominational school
in another Member State, even if the school covers the full period of compulsory education and is
recognised and funded by the State, on the grounds that compulsory education can only be completed in
the student’s own country?

If so, is this also the case when the certificates and final diplomas awarded by schools in the other Member
State are recognised both in that country and in the country of origin, irrespective of whether they are
awarded to citizens of the Member State or citizens of the Member State of origin who have settled in the
country.

Can the Commission say whether Article 45 of the EC Treaty (non-application of the right to freedom of
establishment to activities connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority) applies to
the right to attend and establish a private denominational school in another Member State?