WRITTEN QUESTION E-0268/03 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission. Rabbit Brain Powder.
Date: 2003-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Emilia-Romagna, administrative court, case-law (EU), dangerous substance, health legislation, meat processing industry, public health, rabbit, research body, veterinary inspection

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/165

(2003/C 192 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Funding of small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises through ROPs in Greece

According to the first data gathered, only 3 000 small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises
have submitted funding applications through the 13 Regional Operational Programmes, despite initial
estimates that 7 000 would do so.

Will the Commission say what level of appropriations was earmarked to be allocated, what amount was
actually allocated, what are the grounds for the low level of participation of small and medium-sized
processing and tourist enterprises in the programmes in question and what action it intends to take to
address this specific problem?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

According to the information which the Commission has received from Greece, by the end of the first
series of calls for proposals the number submitted totalled 3 781.

The aid scheme for small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) to which the Honourable Member refers
provides for public expenditure of EUR 240 million.

Since the evaluation of these proposals is now in progress, the Commission has no information on the
total appropriations which will finally be allocated.

At present, since this is the first call for proposals of this type, the Commission is unable to assess the level
of participation by small firms.

Because the action is horizontal in nature, it is for the managing authority and the Monitoring Committee
for the 2000-2006 Community support framework for Greece to propose any appropriate measures which
might prove necessary.

(2003/C 192 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0268/03

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Rabbit Brain Powder

On 29 August 2001, an illegal laboratory for the production of rabbit brain powder (RBP) was discovered
at a rabbit slaughterhouse in Forlimpopoli (IT0531M/S EEC).

During its investigations at the laboratory, the Forli veterinary service also discovered 500 litres of acetone,
a toxic and highly volatile substance which should not be kept at slaughterhouses owing to the possibility
of airborne contamination of the meat being processed and the animals awaiting slaughter.

The Forli veterinary service therefore decided to impound both the laboratory and the RBP.

The Emilia Romagna regional administrative court in Bologna first suspended and then annulled this
measure on economic grounds, without giving due consideration to the consumer protection issues.

C 192 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

On the basis of the above, does the Commission not consider that:

1.

2.

3.

the regional administrative court should, without prejudice to its own prerogatives and powers, be
required when arriving at its decisions to respect the precautionary principle in the field of food safety
and consumer protection laid down in the European treaties;

the ruling by the regional administrative court conflicts with the principle of the general interests of
the protection of public health taking precedence over economic considerations, as established by the
European Court of Justice (Alpharma Inc versus Council of the European Union (cid:1) Case T-70/99R);

the actions of the Forli veterinary service, which is responsible for the Forlimpopoli area, were in
keeping with the principle of food safety and consumer protection?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

As the Commission has not previously been informed of the alleged incident of 29 August 2001 in
Forlimpopoli to which the Honourable Member refers, it is requesting more information on the matter of
the production of the rabbit brain powder from the Italian competent authorities. Without having available
all relevant facts, the Commission is not in a position to form a judgement on the behaviour of any of the
entities involved.

However, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that responsibility
for implementing and enforcing Community legislation lies primarily with the Member States, who are
ultimately liable for the activities of all public authorities and bodies, including national courts and judges.
The general responsibilities of Member States in relation to food are laid down in Article 17 of Regulation
(EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002, laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety (1). The Commission may act only in the event that Community
legislation is not being complied with or is inaccurately enforced by the Member State.

The precautionary principle is part of food safety law and, in specific circumstances, may be invoked when
risk management measures must be taken. This is particularly the case when it is necessary to ensure a
high level of protection of human health in relation to food which, as recalled by the Court and the
Honourable Member, is a principle of general interest taking precedence over economic considerations.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: European vision panel

1. Who are the members of the new ‘European vision panel’, and what powers or decision-making
responsibilities does the panel have relative to European policy on BiOptic driving?

Can the Commission confirm whether the panel is now established and functioning, and what the

2.
frequency of their meetings is?

3. Where is BiOptic driving on their agenda, and what, if any, proactive actions or enquiries are they
pursuing on this subject?

4.

Do they have any projected time frame within which they anticipate developments?