WRITTEN QUESTION P-3314/03 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission. British Beef Imports into France.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, beef, fine, import restriction, judgment of the Court (EU), sanction (EU)

C 70 E/254

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(2004/C 70 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3312/03

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation

Does the European Commission not consider that
Italy has transposed Community legislation on
requirements for entry in the studbook (mandatory for Member States) in a way that hinders the free
movement of goods and freedom to provide services and thus constitutes a barrier to intra-Community
trade?

Italy (whose competent authority is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policy) is the only Member
State which, in addition to imposing specific requirements for entry in the studbook, has set up an ad hoc
committee to assess equine morphology, whose opinion is final and not subject to appeal.

Does the Commission not consider that the existence of this committee is an obstacle to the use/trading in
Italy of stallions that have not passed the committee’s assessment but could be used in another Member
State (for instance, in the UK, where no such committee exists) thereby preventing them from being traded
in Italy?

Does the Commission not also consider that the fact that the committee’s ruling is not subject to appeal is
in breach of Community law and procedures?

In the light of the provisions of Directive 90/427/EC (1) of 26 June 1990 (on the zootechnical and
genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in Equidae) and subsequent modifications,
Commission Decision 92/353/EEC (2) of 11 June 1992 (criteria for the approval or recognition of
organisations and associations which maintain or establish studbooks for
registered equidae) and
subsequent modifications and Commission Decision 96/78/EC (3) of 10 January 1996 (criteria for entry
and registration of equidae in studbooks for breeding purposes) and subsequent modifications:

(cid:1) will the European Commission verify whether Community legislation relating to this sector has been

correctly transposed into national law in Italy?

(cid:1) can the European Commission also challenge the legality of the existence of the assessment committee
referred to above (which exists only in Italy and whose decisions are irrevocable, with no further level
of appeal) which makes the equine trade more difficult in Italy compared to other Member States,
thereby infringing the principles of free competition in the single market?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 192, 11.7.1992, p. 63.
(3) OJ L 19, 25.1.1996, p. 39.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the facts set out by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will
compliance.

look at this question and,

if need be, will take the necessary steps to ensure

(2004/C 70 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3314/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: British Beef Imports into France

In December 2001 the European Court of Justice ruled that a ban imposed by the French government on
the import of British beef into the country was illegal. The Commission then recommended that France be
held liable for substantial fines for non-compliance with the ECJ ruling.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/255

With regard to this situation, could the Commission state whether France was held accountable for its
actions and has any recompense since been paid? If France avoided the judgement passed down on them
could the Commission then explain why this was the case and the amount in fines they should have paid?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2871/02 by Mr Parish (1).

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 25.

(2004/C 70 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3315/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: FMD compensation

The UK government has claimed GBP 948,6 million from the European Commission for the cost of
responding to the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak.

The European Commission has so far paid only GBP 217 million.

Under European law, compensation is only payable to farmers whose animals are thought to have been
exposed to the disease.

Is the European Commission withholding the compensation given neither the EU Directive in force then,
nor the revised version, stipulate contiguous culling as a means of control?

What timescale does the Commission envisage for the completion of compensation payments?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Community reimbursement of Member States’ expenditure for eradication during epidemics such as foot-
and-mouth disease is governed by Decision 90/424/EEC (1). As a general rule, expenditure listed in
Article 11 of this Decision and recognised as eligible may be co-financed up to 60 %.

As for the expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom during the 2001 epidemic, the Commission
adopted three specific financing Decisions on the basis of the aforementioned Decision 90/424/EEC:

(cid:1) Decision 2001/654/EC (2), for the co-financing of the compensation paid by the British authorities for

slaughterings carried out between February and June 2001,

(cid:1) Decision 2003/23/EC (3), for the co-financing of the compensation paid by the British authorities for

slaughterings carried out between July and October 2001, and

(cid:1) Decision 2003/676/EC (4),

for the ‘operational expenditure’ associated with eradication (cleaning,

disinfection, destruction of carcasses, etc.).

The applications for co-financing up to 60 % submitted by the United Kingdom pursuant to these three
Decisions are for EUR 887 million, EUR 102 million and EUR 510 million respectively.