WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/04 by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products.
Date: 2004-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, agricultural waste, aid to undertakings, export of waste, waste management

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/295

In general, the Commission is of the opinion that tax advantages limited to certain parts of a Member State
territory constitute State aid. Such State aid can be approved under the conditions set out in the
Commission guidelines on national regional aid (1). Aid that is not linked to investment, or the realisation
of a specific project and which only foresees relieving undertakings from the costs they normally bear is,
in principle, forbidden.

Member States have also made a commitment under the Code of Conduct for business taxation (2) not to
introduce new harmful tax measures and therefore have an obligation to ensure that their tax measures are
not contrary to this commitment.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2) Conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

(2004/C 84 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/04

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products

In Spain (in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia), there is a single, publicly-owned Category I plant
authorised to carry out the treatment of meat by-products under that category. This plant belongs to a
company called Grefacsa (Greixos i Farines Cárniques, S.A.), based in the locality of Térmens, and handles
specified risk materials (SRMs) that are directly related to BSE (‘mad cow disease’) and other contagious
illnesses.

The plant
treats waste which may originate from a number of Spanish regions or from Andorra.
The animal waste is used as a source of animal meals and fats; subsequently, transport is arranged by the
company to authorised dumping-grounds or incineration plants.

Does Grefacsa receive subsidies from EU funds? If so, for what activities are those subsidies paid? Are the
by-products obtained transported to other EU Member States? Should that be the case, under what current
legislation is it possible to export by-products obtained from materials classified as SRMs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Animal by-products Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) establishes health rules concerning the
collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal, placing on the market and,
in certain specific cases, the export and transit of animal by-products and derived products to prevent
them from presenting a risk to animal or public health. The dispatch of animal by-products and processed
products to other Member States is allowed under Article 8 of the Regulation, provided such dispatch is in
line with the channelling provisions of that Article. The export to third countries of specified risk materials
is banned under the Regulation, but the import provisions do not yet apply until 1 May 2004.

Throughout the programming period 2000-2006 and with the exception of major Structural Funds
projects, the selection of individual projects is the responsibility of the authorities in the Member States,
once the programmes have been agreed by the Commission. The projects selected by the authorities must,
however, conform with Community law in all respects, including that relating to the environment.

Accordingly, further to the information provided by the Member State, the Commission informs the
Honourable Member that six operations submitted by Grefacsa have been part-financed so far by the
2000-2006 Rural Development Programme of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, under its
measure ‘improving processing and marketing of agricultural projects’. These operations regardedl

C 84 E/296

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

environmenta and technological improvements of the company’s factories in Sant Joan les Fonts (Girona,
4 operations) and Térmens (Lleida, 2 operations). Concerning the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) the same national authorities have confirmed that no subvention have been allowed to this
company.

The Commission has no information about possible transport of by-products obtained by this company
from Spain to other Member States.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules

concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/04

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies

Since the beginning of 2004, some insurance companies in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have
required independent experts in the automobile sector to work with the Belgian loss adjuster Informex.

Does the Commission take the view that this practice is compatible with the principle of the free
movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty? If not, what measures will it take
to put an end to these discriminatory practices?

Some of the companies involved prescribe which garage their clients must use for their repairs.

Does not the Commission share my view that that practice infringes the principle of the free movement of
services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty referred to above? If so, is it prepared to take
the measures required to put an end thereto?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However,
The Commission has taken note of
in accordance with Article 49 of
the information provided by the
the EC Treaty and in light of
Honourable Member, the Commission is not able to act in this case in accordance with the infringement
procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty because the facts refer to existing contractual
relations between several private entities.

The provisions of the EC Treaty which relate to providing services are formally addressed to the Member
States. Although this does not mean that rights cannot be conferred simultaneously on any individual who
may be affected by the observance of the rules, as defined here, contesting the practices of private entities
falls mainly within the competence of the national courts. In fact, it is established case law that it is firstly
the responsibility of national courts to apply Community law and to establish the implications of the case
law of the Court of Justice within the procedural framework. Since it is a question of the interpretation of
Community law, it is necessary in any event to mention the possibility for national courts to use the
mechanism of the preliminary question provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty to obtain an
interpretation of the provisions of Community law from the Court of Justice, which alone has jurisdiction
in this respect.

If the choice of Informex by each insurance company was made in cooperation with competing companies
and not independently, such cooperation could be interpreted under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. This
Article prohibits agreements between companies which are likely to affect trade between Member States
and which are aimed at restricting competition. However, the Commission does not have any information
which indicates that such cooperation might exist.