WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/03 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Foot and mouth disease.
Date: 2003-09-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, United Kingdom, animal disease, animal welfare, competence of the Member States, disease prevention, epidemic, foot-and-mouth disease, health legislation, slaughter of animals

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/203

the Commission act

Will
competition applying to building contractors from other Member States,
1 September 2003?

to ensure that Germany puts an end to this even greater restriction of
from

in particular Austria,

Is the Commission aiming for a rapid conclusion of Case C-341/02, which is of significance in establishing
case law?

Will the Commission seek to ensure that, when calculating the minimum wage, Germany also recognises
those payments that, owing to the provisions of the law or collective agreements in the Member State of
origin, are not issued on the scheduled date of payment of the minimum wage in question, but only in
December, for example (Christmas bonus)?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The failure by the German authorities to recognise bonuses and supplements paid by employers based in
another Member State to their employees in the building sector posted to Germany (e.g. the Christmas
bonus or additional holiday allowance in Austria) when calculating such workers’ pay is currently the
subject of infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Germany. The Commission has
referred the matter to the Court of Justice (Case No C-341/02) on the grounds that it contravenes Article 3
of Directive 96/71/EC (1) and Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

As this point is crucial to interpreting Directive 96/71/EC, the Commission hopes to see an early ruling by
the Court in case C-341/02. However, it is the Court of Justice itself and not the Commission that sets the
date for opening the oral procedure.

(1) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of

workers in the framework of the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2004/C 58 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Foot and mouth disease

In an attempt to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease in 2001, the United Kingdom government
ordered the culling of ten million animals, 90 % of which are thought not to have been infected.

Many of the killings took place without regard to welfare considerations or legislation, with reports of
many maimed animals subsequently being buried or incinerated alive.

The widespread closure of footpaths and open countryside had a devastating effect upon the tourist
industry in many parts of the UK.

The response of EU governments to the 2001 epidemic has since been the subject of much discussion.

Has the UK government provided the Commission with any information to indicate that it will adopt a
radically different approach in the event of another outbreak, and, in particular, that it will endorse the use
of ring-fence vaccination to curb the spread of the disease and permit animal welfare considerations to be
respected?

C 58 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

With reference to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to refer to
its proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease,
which was adopted on 13 December 2002 (1).

After intensive discussions on this document in Council working groups, taking into account the opinions
of the Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee and
following the political agreement by the Agricultural Council of 12 June 2003 in Luxembourg, the
Directive was formally adopted by the Council in September 2003 (2).

The new Directive confers more responsibility on Member States to choose the most efficient strategy for
the control of an outbreak, including scenarios for emergency vaccination.

In March 2003 the United Kingdom published its revised contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease.
The plan, still based on Directive 85/511/EEC (3), is considered an operational document and provides a
framework for an emergency response to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. It aims at a proportionate
response to any future outbreak,
including the use of emergency vaccination and better controls on
compliance with animal welfare legislation.

(1) COM(2002) 736 final.
(2) http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/st12/st12430-ad01en03.pdf
(3) Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-

mouth disease, OJ L 315, 26.11.1985.

(2004/C 58 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Elimination of obstacles to claiming pension entitlements where workers have in the past worked

in another Member State

1.
Does the Commission recall that in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, many residents of Spain, Portugal, Italy
and Greece worked in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and other north-western States
which at the time were more affluent and were short of manpower for dirty, dangerous and unpleasant
work, and that after a number of years many of them returned to their countries of origin?

2.
Is the Commission aware that, while temporarily working abroad, many of these people accumulated
entitlements to a universal State pension, e.g. 2 % per annum of a full pension in the Netherlands, and also
entitlements to occupational pensions, and that in many cases they did not commute their entitlements for
a lump-sum payment upon returning to their countries of origin, so that they are entitled to payment of
these pensions upon reaching the age of 65 or whatever the applicable age may be?

3.
How many people per Member State are now entitled to payment of a partial State pension or
occupational pension but have not yet claimed it because they are not aware of their rights or of the
formalities which have to be completed in order to obtain payment?

4.
Does the Commission agree that it is unacceptable that in practice people in the EU cannot obtain
payment of the pensions to which they are entitled because their entitlements accrued in a different
Member State to that of their nationality and that where they currently reside and because they lack
information about the extent of their entitlements and how they can claim them?

5. What will the Commission do to improve both information about accumulated pension entitlements
and ways of claiming them quickly and easily, so that in future all pension entitlements can be claimed?