WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/04 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission. Animal By-Products Regulation.
Date: 2004-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal product, application of EU law, by-product, foodstuffs legislation, health control, health legislation, small and medium-sized enterprises, waste

C 84 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

respect the following principles (cid:1) that terminal dues be fixed in relation to the costs of processing and
delivering in-coming cross border mail (cid:1) that levels of remuneration be related to the quality of service
achieved and that terminal dues be transparent and non-discriminatory.

The above principles apply to all universal service tariffs including those collected through electronic
stamps.

In practical terms, however, as there may be differences in the costs of delivery in the Member States, there
may be differences between cross border tariffs and terminal dues, (and, therefore the price of electronic
stamps for cross border services), even where they are geared to costs.

Finally, in terms of the actual organisation of the collection of tariffs, such as the E Stamp, Article 8 of the
said Directive states that Member States have the right to organise the issue of postage stamps in
accordance with their national legislation.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the
development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service,
OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with

regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Animal By-Products Regulation

The above regulation has recently been implemented within Scotland resulting in numerous inter-
pretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation,
its enactment in Scotland is causing
concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges, which will ultimately
force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation,
envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be
dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Regulation (EC) No1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (1), as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003 (2), lays down health rules concerning animal
by-products not intended for human consumption. It was adopted on 3 October 2002, published on
10 October 2002 and applied from 1 May 2003.

The Regulation covers small businesses as far as the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and
use or disposal, importation, export and transit of animal by-products are concerned to prevent these
products from presenting a risk to animal or public health. There is no cut-off point foreseen where small
businesses would fall out of the scope of the Regulation, and Member States cannot derogate from its
provisions.

A fundamental revision of the Community rules applicable to animal by-products was necessary in the
light of the recent feed-borne crises (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin, foot and mouth
disease, etc.) and the wide variety of approaches that existed in Member States as regards the financial
support for processing, collection, storage and disposal of animal by-products.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/211

On the basis of Article 35 of the Regulation in relation to national provisions, Member States have been
asked to communicate to the Commission the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Regulation,
and any difficulties they face. The Commission shall submit, before the end of 2004, a report to the
Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals taking into account the
difficulties raised by Member States.

If, therefore, particular problems have arisen for smaller operators, it would be expected that Member
States’ responses to Article 35 would put the Commission in a position to recommend responses to those
problems by the end of 2004.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
(2) OJ L 117, 13.5.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0514/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Follow-up question to Written Question E-2133/02 on discrimination against

international

football referees on grounds of age

On 17 July 2003, I submitted a written question (E-2133/02 (1)) on discrimination against international
football referees on grounds of age. The Commission indicated in its reply that ‘a blanket age limit’ is not
‘a guide to physical fitness or ability’ and that, ‘where a certain level of physical fitness is required to carry
out a particular job, appropriate tests may be used in the selection of candidates’. The Commission also
stated that Directive 2000/78/EC (2) must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003, except
where an additional period of up to three years is requested. It was recently reported in the press that the
well-known Italian referee P. Collina will have to stop refereeing when he turns 45, as the rules prohibit
him from carrying on beyond that age. It would appear from this that UEFA has not amended its rules on
this point (FIFA Article 4).

Does the Commission take the view that the fact that the Italian referee Collina has to stop exercising
1.
his profession because he is 45, even though he passes the relevant physical tests, is in breach of the
provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC?

If so, what steps will the Commission take against FIFA, one of whose rules contravenes the

2.
provisions of this Directive?

3. What action will the Commission take against Member States that allow their citizens to work for
organisations that include provisions in their contracts contravening European, and therefore also national,
law in Italy, given that Italy did not request an additional period for the transposition of the provisions of
Directive 2000/78/EC?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

‘inter alia’, age must be transposed into national

The Commission recalls that Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation prohibits discrimination in employment on
grounds of,
law by 2 December 2003. In addition,
Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to
implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Germany, Belgium, the UK,
the Netherlands and Sweden have informed the Commission that they will use this additional three years,
and Denmark one extra year.