WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/03 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission. Fines imposed on six French federations in the beef and veal sector.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), appeal, beef, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cattle, fine, fixing of prices, minimum price, trade union

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/109

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

During the current parliamentary term the Commission has not launched any proceedings under Article 85
of the EC Treaty, with regard to Italian companies, nor are there any pending proceedings. Article 85 has
been to a large extent out of use since the adoption of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First
Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. With regard to investigations under Regulation
17, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its annual reports on the application of the
competition rules in the European Union for 1999, 2000 and 2001. These reports are accessible via
internet under http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/annual_reports/.

With regard to infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would refer
the Honourable Member to the annual reports to Parliament on monitoring the application of Community
law relating to 1999 (1), 2000 (2) and 2001 (3).

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2001.
(2) OJ C 263, 19.9.2001.
(3) OJ C 214, 10.9.2002.

(2004/C 51 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Soccer and racism

Can the Council please give its response to the rise in racism and the organised racist behaviour of soccer
supporters of particular soccer clubs within EU countries and to the fines recently levied by UEFA on
particular soccer clubs?

Does the Council have a view on the disturbing evidence of organised racism at soccer matches in
particular accession countries, again identified by UEFA (for example in Slovakia)?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any racist incident, whether it takes place in the framework of a soccer
match or not. The Council equally condemns racist incidents in the acceeding countries. The Council
cannot comment regarding the fines levied by UEFA.

(2004/C 51 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/03

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Fines imposed on six French federations in the beef and veal sector

In a decision of 2 April 2003 the Commission imposed a fine amounting to a total of EUR 16,7 million on
six French federations in the beef and veal sector for concluding an agreement on the suspension of French
beef and veal imports and setting minimum prices for certain categories of livestock.

C 51 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

In the wake of the ‘mad cow’ crisis, beef and veal producers found themselves in a situation of great
distress (drop in consumption and production prices), reinforced in France by the characteristics of French
farms, where the role of suckler herds is very important.

the
In these circumstances the introduction of a price stabilisation system was justified.
Commission itself recognised the special circumstances and the exceptionally difficult economic context
that lay behind the measures taken.

Indeed,

Does the Commission intend, therefore, to take greater account of the non-commercial aspects of this
matter and to forego these penalties completely or, at least, exact only symbolic fines?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question P-1419/
03 by Ms Mathieu (1).

The Commission is of course fully aware of the particular difficulties faced by the beef and veal sector, as is
amply illustrated by the range of measures it has adopted to stabilise the market. Over a billion and half
euro have been spent by the Commission on these efforts, and France has been authorised to grant over
EUR 300 million in direct aid to farmers affected by the crisis. All of these factors were taken into
consideration in the decision of 2 April 2003.

In its decision the Commission took account of what the Honourable Member refers to as the ‘non-
commercial aspects of this matter’. Exceptionally, it made use of a special provision of its guidelines on
setting fines (2) in order to substantially reduce the fine it would otherwise have imposed (by 60 %).

As for the possibility of reviewing the decision, it is not, in principle, for the Commission to go back on its
decisions. If they consider that the Commission’s decision is flawed in fact or law, the parties have the
right to appeal to the Court of First Instance. The parties have indeed publicly declared their intention to
use the legal remedies provided by the EC Treaty.

(1) See page 86.
(2) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1578/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: OLAF investigation in connection with the Commission’s Vienna representation

In my Written Question E-1966/01 (1) of 5 July 2001 I drew the Commission’s attention to irregularities at
its Vienna delegation. The Commission was already in possession of facts relating to these irregularities at
the time, but had not taken any action: in a letter of 3 December 1999 the Austrian private employees’
trade union had informed the Commission that for years a large number of staff members at the
Commission’s delegation in Austria had been employed on a fee basis, thus circumventing social and
labour law. A report by Financial Control drawn up following an audit carried out between 7 and 11 July
1999 also contained indications of serious irregularities.

in a letter of 11 April 2003, Ms Schreyer informs me that OLAF ‘hopes’

Further to my question an investigation was begun by the European Fraud Investigation Office (OLAF).
Now,
to conclude this
investigation in June 2003. The delay was ‘partly’ due to the fact that the agent in charge of the
investigation had had to be replaced by another official in December 2002 because of health problems.