WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/03 by Jan Mulder (ELDR)and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Introduction of a national definition of veal by France.
Date: 2003-02-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, France, Netherlands, application of EU law, free movement of goods, labelling, legal basis, marketing standard, mutual recognition principle, technical barriers to trade, veal

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/133

railway undertakings on which the Commission has no influence. It is up to the Member States to impose
any public service obligations on the railway undertakings in this respect, if they wish to do so.

There could be various reasons for these conditions like comfort and security for passengers in night trains
or operational reasons. The Commission is not aware of any detailed arrangement in this respect from the
railway undertakings. However the limitations to embark and disembark the trains could be due to the
absence in Community law of the right of cabotage in international trains and to the lack of pressure put
on the railway undertakings to attract passengers.

The Commission will in the preparation of a proposal for a regulation for rail passenger rights reflect on
possible ways to improve the conditions of contracts for passengers. And, as requested by the Parliament,
the Commission will make proposals to allow the access rights for international passenger services, in order
to eliminate artificial barriers.

(2003/C 242 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR)
and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Introduction of a national definition of veal by France

At the end of 2002 the French Government introduced a national definition of veal, which applies to all
veal marketed in France. The rules say that only meat from calves less than 195 days old may be marketed
under the name of veal. Meat from calves older than this arbitrary 195-day ceiling may no longer be sold
as veal, as was usual before the new definition was introduced. This is causing a substantial loss of earnings
for the Netherlands veal sector in particular, which has exports to France valued at EUR 300 million a year.

Can the Commission say whether it was notified of this measure by France in accordance with the

1.
relevant procedures?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that a unilateral definition of this kind, based on an arbitrary
age of 195 days not justified by any European regulations or standard practice, is in breach of European
law? This conclusion is based on the case law in the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ case concerning the free movement
of goods in the internal market, which says that a product marketed under a specific name in one Member
State can also be marketed under that name in the other EU Member States.

3.
In view of the major commercial interests at stake here, can the Commission give a ruling on the
regularity of this unilateral measure by France and also indicate what possibilities there are for claims for
damages by the Netherlands export industry and what support the Commission can provide in this
connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

The Commission was informed on 7 January 2003 of the serious concern of Netherlands veal producers at
the adoption by the French authorities of provisions on the labelling of veal in France.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000
establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of
beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (1), the French authorities
adopted a set of specifications restricting the age of bovine animals whose meat may be marketed as ‘veal’
in France to six months or 195 days.

C 242 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Commission asked the French authorities for clarification regarding the justification and legal basis for
these provisions, in response to which it received a written reply. During discussions in the Management
Committee for Beef and Veal, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of the French
provision.

In close cooperation with the French and Netherlands authorities, the Commission is making a detailed
examination of the legal aspects of this matter and more particularly of the provisions on the voluntary
labelling system provided for by the above Regulation.

the serious impact

the French provisions could have on trade in calves raised in the
In view of
Netherlands, the Commission will endeavour speedily to obtain a legal opinion on their validity and reach
an appropriate decision.

(1) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.

(2003/C 242 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Air supply for passengers in the Eurostar and other high-speed trains when the power supply is

cut off

1.
Is the Commission aware that on the evening of Friday, 7 February 2003, a Eurostar train en route
from London to Paris broke down shortly after departure and was stationary for five hours before being
towed back into London Waterloo international station six hours after it had left?

2.
Is it also aware that while the train was at a standstill the passengers not only had no water and were
prohibited from using the toilets, but were also deprived of fresh air and enough oxygen to breathe
normally and were forced to smash the windows using the emergency hammers?

3. Was this shortage of air due to the fact that the train, unlike earlier models, is completely airtight,
so that when the doors are shut the supply of air is completely dependent on a ventilation system that
operates only with a continuous supply of electricity?

4. What would the consequences be if an incident of this kind occurred during a warm summer period,
when there would not only be a shortage of oxygen but also a sharp rise in air temperature? Might it not
be the case that many people would lose consciousness and some of them even die?

5.
Can problems of this kind also occur in the other high-speed trains, such as the French TGV, which
it is different from the Eurostar on the outside but is fitted with the same materials inside, the similar
Thalys operated by Belgium on cross-border services, the Spanish AVE, the German ICE, the Italian
ETR.500 and the Swedish X-2000?

6. What measures are being taken to protect passengers from such incidents in future? Does the
Commission intend to make it mandatory for train windows always to open sufficiently in the event of an
accident, as used to be the case in all trains?

Source: TV1 Flanders, late night news, 8 February 2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Honourable Member’s question relates to an incident on the 17.15 Eurostar train from London to
Paris on 7 February, of which the Commission was duly informed.

A formal enquiry is being carried out jointly by Eurostar and Network Rail, the infrastructure manager.
According to information available to the Commission, the abnormal duration of the incident was due to a
combination of factors: the difficulty of identifying the fault because of its unusual nature, the difficulty of
repairing it because of the particularly unfortunate position of the train and the time of day (rush hour),