WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/04 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, meat processing industry, restriction on competition, slaughter of animals

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/673

(2004/C 84 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/04

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Lift safety

The European Committee for Standardisation has produced a safety norm for existing lifts, the SNEL.
This standard helps countries identify the risks of existing lifts and legislate to improve their safety.
Recommendation 95/216/EC (1) accompanying Directive 95/16/EC (2) obviously does not mention this new
norm. In view of the number of fatal accidents that have occurred in recent years and as some countries
have enacted legislation in this sphere or are in the process of doing so, it would appear to be essential to
update the recommendation. This would help policy-makers determine the most appropriate measures to
take to minimise the risks linked to existing lifts in compliance with Norm EN 81-80, which was ratified
on 3 November 2003.

Can the Commission give an undertaking that the recommendation will be updated?

(1) OJ L 134, 20.6.1995, p. 37.
(2) OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Commission Recommendation 95/216/EC of 8 June 1995 (1) concerns existing lifts, i.e. lifts installed before
the entry into force of the lifts Directive 95/16/EC (2). This recommendation calls on Member States to take
all necessary action on their territory to ensure a satisfactory level of maintenance for existing lifts and to
improve the safety of those lifts.

The European Committee for Standardisation has recently adopted a new standard, EN 81-80, which
concerns improving the safety of existing lifts. Even though this standard does not have the same status as
the harmonised standards adopted under Directive 95/16/EC, it provides advice and information which
will certainly be of great value for all parties concerned in the implementation of Recommendation
95/216/EC. The Commission will closely examine the possibility of updating its recommendation to
include a reference to the new standard. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the
decision taken following this examination.

(1) OJ L 134, 20.6.1995.
(2) European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/CEC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States relating to lifts, OJ L 213, 7.9.1995.

(2004/C 84 E/0760)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering

The Netherlands Agriculture Minister recently sent an overview of rendering charges to the Netherlands
Second Chamber (23 February 2004). The overview shows that there are substantial differences between
the Member States as regards the charges made for rendering and associated costs.

Is the Commission aware of the great differences between the Member States as regards the rendering

1.
charges which are paid by farmers?

C 84 E/674

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Do the Member States follow the guidelines laid down by the Commission on 24 December 2002,

2.
including the amendments included as of 1 January 2004?

If not, what does the Commission plan to do to ensure that these guidelines are followed?

If so, does the Commission not take the view that, given the major differences, it is time to work towards
further harmonisation of these charges in the short term?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not have an overview of charges made for rendering and associated costs, in the
different Member States. If the Honourable Member has such information, would he please forward it to
the Commission.

All Member States except Luxembourg have accepted in writing to respect the guidelines referred to by the
Honourable Member. As to Luxembourg, the Commission has just proposed appropriate measures.

It would not seem that differences in the costs charged by renderers in various Member States could
properly be dealt with through State aid provisions. The play of competition forces should ensure that
comparable prices are charged in comparable situations.

(2004/C 84 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/04

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Application for a grant by Mr Doriano Cataffo

My office has received a question from the lawyers’ firm of Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen of Augsburg,
acting on behalf of its client Mr Bernhard Oswald, Pfarrer-Steinacker-Str. 15a, D-86551 Aichach, Germany.

In 2002, Mr Oswald instructed Mr Doriano Cataffo, Via R. Ricci 46, I-84129 Salerno, Italy, to apply to the
Commission for a grant. Using the money, Mr Oswald intended to buy a plot of land at Herzog-Max-Str. 7,
D-86551 Aichach/Unterwittelsbach, Germany,
in order to build a guesthouse there. Mr Cataffo had
promised him that he would be able to obtain EU funding for the project under the Community Support
Framework 2000-2006.

Although Mr Cataffo has been paid for his work, it does not appear that any application has been made.
Mr Oswald therefore wishes to bring an action against Mr Cataffo.

I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions in order to clarify the situation:

1. Did Mr Cataffo submit an application for a grant as described above, on behalf of Mr Oswald?

2.

3.

4.

If so, was the application approved, and has the money been paid?

Is it in principle possible for aid to be granted for such building projects?

the Commission aware of

Is
Schulz & Kollegen, has acted in similar ways on a number of occasions?

the activities of Mr Cataffo, who, according to Kiederle, Dr