WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/03 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission. Difficulties at the German-Polish border.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Poland, accession to the European Union, competence of the Member States, customs, lease, parking area, road traffic, termination of a contract

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/629

via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation
to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore,
by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the
Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection.

The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in
third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry
products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in
the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the
geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for
animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of
meat and bone meal
for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the
Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry
and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the
Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with
vegetable proteins such as soya.

(MBM)

2. and 3.
The Commission is aware that the customs authorities in some Member States have classified
large quantities of chicken meat imported into the Community as salted meat under tariff heading 0210
when the meat in question was in fact frozen chicken meat with salt added in quantities too small to
preserve it. This meat properly belongs under heading 0207 (frozen poultry meat) since it can be kept for
a long time only because it is frozen.

The very different rates of customs duty attached to these two these headings, and the fact that, in some
third countries, production costs are much lower than in Europe, mean that the practice has indeed had a
serious effect on European poultry producers.

The Commission responded to the differing interpretations given to the classification rules by adopting
appropriate legislative measures in July 2002, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) requiring that the
meat be classified as frozen poultry meat under heading 0207 and Commission Decision 2003/97/EC of
31 January 2003 (2) calling on the German customs administration to withdraw a number of binding tariff
information notices classifying the products in question as salted meat under heading 0210.

the relevant Commission departments are
The Commission assures the Honourable Member
the
constantly monitoring this matter and that, by adopting new regulations or amending notes,
Commission would take whatever action was necessary if it became apparent that the measures already
adopted were not effective in ensuring that tariff classifications were correctly and uniformly applied.

that

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the

Combined Nomenclature, OJ L 179, 9.7.2002.

(2) OJ L 36, 12.2.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Difficulties at the German-Polish border

On Friday, 19 September the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) travelled to the Spree Forest
town of Burg, Germany, for the rotating meeting of the Executive Committee, where I was informed of the
following problem.

For reasons of cost, and in anticipation of Poland’s entry into the EU, the customs administration
announced the termination of the lease for the pre-border waiting area on the site of the former Preschen
air base (Spree-Neisse administrative district) on the A15 at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna with

C 88 E/630

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

effect from 1 October 2003. Under its current management, the waiting area provides parking spaces for
700 lorries, with extra room for ADR and abnormal loads, empty vehicles and container carriages, and
also sanitary facilities and sleeping places for drivers, enabling them to observe the rest requirements. The
hours of waiting are made more bearable by the availability of proper waste disposal facilities, a canteen
and snacks.

If no agreement is reached by 1 October 2003 and the termination of the lease is finalised, this will
inevitably lead to mile-long truck tailbacks on the motorway with all the familiar consequences.

Alongside the continuing problems at the border crossing point Guben-Schlagsdorf, where lorries queue as
far back as the town of Guben on an almost daily basis, the closure of the pre-border waiting area at
Preschen would certainly result in traffic chaos.

As an MEP and President of the AEBR, I would like to know whether the Commission intends to take new
measures to prevent this problem at the German-Polish border.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member concerning the possible future
problem at the German-Polish border at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna. However, as far as the
facilities available for customs controls are concerned, on the basis of the available information, it is not
clear to what extent these are directly affected by the expiry of the lease in question. Moreover, the
administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission’s
competence and are fully within the national competence of the Member States. Consequently, even if the
Member States have to respect certain Community principles,
the provision of such facilities and
infrastructure is purely a matter of national competence. Finally, the Commission has no power to
intervene with regard to local contractual arrangements on which such facilities may depend.

(2004/C 88 E/0648)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Commission’s proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC

A report in the scientific journal ‘Headache’ (May 2003, p.555) indicates that people with a predisposition
to migraine may suffer an attack if they take a substance known as sucralose.

This substance is being considered for possible inclusion on the EU’s list of approved additives. The
Commission has accordingly submitted, in a document of 16 May 2003, a revised amendment to Directive
94/35/EC (1) of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs. The amendment proposes that the active
substance ‘Splenda’ (sucralose) be approved in the EU as E955.

The amendment also relates to substance E962 (aspartame-acesulphame salt). Aspartame is a well-known
migraine-inducing substance, but there are no studies on aspartame-acesulphame salt.

Will the Commission take the initiative of having both these substances (together with other food
additives) thoroughly investigated for possible migraine-inducing effect before they are included on the list
of approved additives?

(1) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3.