WRITTEN QUESTION P-3332/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Export refunds for live cattle.
Date: 2003-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural statistics, breeding animal, cattle, export refund, fraud, live animal, slaughter of animals, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

C 78 E/262

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3332/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject: Export refunds for live cattle

The Commission’s 2002 annual report on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the
fight against fraud mentions 561 cases of irregularities involving live animals.

Can the Commission state how many of these irregularities related to shipments of breeding cattle and also
indicate the amount of money involved? How many cases relate to cattle intended for slaughter?

How many animal shipments that benefited from export refunds in 2002 were checked (in absolute and
relative figures)?

Can the Commission name the ten undertakings that received most export refunds for live animal
shipments in 2002? What amount did each of these undertakings receive under this budget heading?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission’s 2002 annual report on protection of the Community’s financial interests and the fight
against
the Combined
Nomenclature). Cattle accounted for 444 cases (amount involved EUR 4,7 million) and sheep for 117 cases
(EUR 1,5 million). Of the cattle cases 262 were straight export refund frauds.

fraud mentions 561 irregularity cases involving live animals (Chapter 01 of

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 595/91 (1) requires the Member States to provide particulars of irregularity
cases but the information received by the Commission does not enable it to distinguish between breeding
animals and those intended for slaughter.

The legislation in force requires Member States to check all cattle leaving the Community for which an
export refund is claimed. Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (2) made payment of the refund conditional on
compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC (3) and required bovine animals to be inspected by a veterinarian at
the point where they left the Community’s customs territory. It also required a check when the animals
were unloaded in the country of final destination in cases where the means of transport was changed after
departure from the Community and in cases where the veterinarian at the exit point from the Community
considered that one should be made. This Regulation was recently replaced by Regulation (EC) No 639/
2003 (4) applying to export declarations accepted from 1 October 2003. The new Regulation requires
veterinary inspection of all consignments at the point of exit from the Community’s customs territory, at
any point outside the Union where the means of transport is changed and at the place where the animals
are unloaded in the country of final destination.

In reply to the Honourable Member’s third question (the identity of the top ten companies for live animal
export refunds in 2002 and the amount received by each), Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2390/
1999 (5) states that the Commission is to ensure that the information it receives under that Regulation is
kept confidential. Thus it cannot provide the name of any recipient of aid from the EAGGF Guarantee
Section.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/263

In the 2002 EAGGF financial year (16 October 2001 to
It can however provide aggregate figures.
15 October 2002) EUR 56 million was paid out in live animal export refunds to 98 recipients. The ten
biggest of these accounted for 80 % of this amount.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly
paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information
system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72, OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for
the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
(3) Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending

Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council
Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of
live bovine animals during transport, OJ L 93, 10.4.2003.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules on the application of
Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States
must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3334/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject: Politically absurd opinion polls

On 3 November the Italian press gave prominence to the results of an opinion poll, requested by the
Commission’s Directorate-General for Press and Communication, asking which country is the greatest
threat to peace.

Irrespective of the objective reliability of the answers (it is a known fact that much depends on how a
question is asked), can the Commission say:

1. what prompted it to ask such a question, who devised this part of the poll and on the basis of what

criteria;

2. whether it was aware that such a question is provocative;

3. how it can equate democracies such as the United States and Israel with totalitarian regimes which

suppress fundamental freedoms and human dignity, such as North Korea;

4. whether it realises that to treat the subject of peace in this way shows a total lack of diplomacy;

5. how much the poll cost, what budget line was used to pay for it and what the point of such

expenditure is for the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that on 3 November 2003, while in New York,
Mr Prodi made a statement concerning the Eurobarometer Flash 151 survey in which he voiced concern at
the findings. He took the step of organising for the first half of 2004 a seminar with the organisations
representing the Jewish communities in Europe to study the role of Judaism in the construction of Europe
and the relations between European public opinion, Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Near and Middle
East.