WRITTEN QUESTION P-2144/03 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Quality standards for imports.
Date: 2003-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural product, consumer protection, health control, import (EU), quality standard, surveillance concerning imports

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/225

2.

In its answer to an earlier question (P-3515/02 (1)), the Commission made clear that the Member States
must take the measures required to implement the directive and comply with the Court of Justice
judgment. However, the answer also reveals that the Netherlands, where waiting periods are still
regarded as rest periods and workers in some sectors work considerably more than 48 hours per
week, has failed to comply with the judgment. Accordingly, the Netherlands has been in breach of EU
law for almost 1000 days since 3 October 2000. Is it therefore not high time that infringement
proceedings were started?

3. Would it be right to assume that the continuing failure, after almost three years, to complete the
impact study or the fact that the directive is to be assessed in late 2003 will have no bearing on the
decision to launch infringement proceedings?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 217.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission organised a meeting with Member States’ representatives on 28 April 2003 regarding the
future communication from the Commission concerning Directive 93/104/EC (1). The agenda for this
meeting included an item on the follow-up to the SIMAP judgment (2). At this meeting, the Commission
informed the Member States’ representatives of the latest developments and held a debate with a view to
ascertaining their opinions so that these could be taken into account in the communication on working
time.

In addition, the Commission is currently analysing Member States’ legislation in the light of the SIMAP
judgment, with a view to proposing the launch of the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC
Treaty in all cases where this is justified.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,

(2)

OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000, Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v.
Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, European Court Reports 2000, p. I-07963.

(2004/C 33 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2144/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Quality standards for imports

In the European Union, quality standards in agriculture are set at a very high level. That is very much to be
welcomed.

In the case of imports of agricultural products from non-EU countries, however, are the same standards
genuinely complied with?

Is this regulated by the EU?

Only clear harmonisation of provisions on imports, too, can protect European consumers and ensure that
European farmers are competitive.

Would the Commission comment on this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission insists that food should be safe, irrespective of its origin. Therefore, as a general principle,
imports of agricultural products must offer equivalent levels of safety as products of Community origin.

C 33 E/226

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The key legislation in the food safety and animal health sectors include provisions to this effect. There is a
range of controls in place to ensure that these provisions are respected.

These can be summarised as follows:

(cid:1) third countries wishing to export live animals and animal products to the Community must be
approved. The approval process includes verification of the organisation and powers of the competent
authority, animal health status hygiene controls and controls on residues of veterinary medicines and
banned substances, legislation etc;

(cid:1) the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission carries out periodic inspection missions in third
countries, in particular in countries seeking approval to export to the Community, to verify their
control systems;

(cid:1) establishments in third countries wishing to export animal products to the Community must similarly

be authorised by the Commission on the basis of guarantees from their competent authorities;

(cid:1) all imports must be checked at the point of entry to the Community, at border inspection posts. These
checks include documentary and identity and physical checks. Random checks for residues and
banned substances are also carried out;

(cid:1) Member States are alerted to breaches of food safety requirements from imports through the Rapid

Alert System on Food and Feed and are asked to take appropriate follow-up action;

(cid:1) there is a high level of harmonisation in relation to these measures. Moreover, new legislation is
increasingly being enacted through the use of regulations of the Council and the Parliament rather
than Directives which will ensure an even higher level of uniformity. The current proposal for a
Regulation of the Parliament and the Council on food and feed controls (1) will, in particular, provide
for an up-to-date regulatory framework;

(cid:1) where there is evidence that

the Commission takes
corrective action. This is a function of the seriousness of the situation but can extend to a requirement
for 100 % testing at import for banned substances or an outright ban on imports;

imported agricultural products are unsafe,

(cid:1) the Commission is satisfied that this framework ensures that there are equivalent levels of safety
between imported agricultural products and imports. This in turn ensures that European producers are
not put at a competitive disadvantage with respect to measures guaranteeing safety;

(cid:1) it is a fact that very high standards for animal welfare apply within the Community. In order to
safeguard the interests of the Community producer the Community proposes in the framework of the
next World Trade Organisation (WTO) round to exempt compensation of additional costs to meet
animal welfare standards from reduction commitments where it can be clearly shown that these costs
stem directly from the adoption of higher standards and thus are not, or at most minimally, trade
distorting.

(1) COM(2003) 52 final.

(2004/C 33 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Non-profit-making bodies

Non-profit-making bodies, in particular ones set up by young people and active in the cultural sphere,
incalculably enrich European society and constitute a basic force for socio-cultural development and
integration.