You are on page 1of 3

2. 10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/47

2. The Commission sees to it that European directives are properly implemented by the Member States. With
regard to Directive 92/43/EEC, it has instituted infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to transmit the
Spanish lists within the deadline. Following the delivery of a reasoned opinion in November 1997, Spain did
transmit a list of sites. The Commission is currently examining the documents provided by the Spanish
authorities to determine whether the proceedings need be pursued any further.
3. At special biogeographical meetings, the Commission works with the Member States and independent
experts to evaluate the lists of sites proposed by the Member States for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network.
Given the large number of sites proposed (several thousand), it is impossible for each of them to be examined in
situ.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(98/C 304/65) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/98
by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(5 February 1998)
Subject: Disability benefits in EU Member States
Can the Commission please indicate, on a country-by-country basis, the amount of money spent by each Member
State on disability benefits?

(98/C 304/66) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/98
by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(5 February 1998)
Subject: Disability benefits in EU Member States
Can the Commission please indicate, on a country-by-country basis, the amount of money spent by each Member
State on disability benefits as a proportion of total government spending?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0185/98 and E-0186/98
given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 1998)
The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(98/C 304/67) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0193/98
by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission
(28 January 1998)
Subject: Zoonoses
Council Directive 97/22/EC (1) amending Directive 92/117/EEC (2) concerning measures for protection against
specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents adds Article 15a to the latter directive stipulating that the
Commission must submit a report to the Council before 1 November 1997 on the measures to be implemented for
the control and prevention of zoonoses.
Can the Commission inform me of the report’s conclusions?
Which are the Member States which, by 1 January 1998, had still not implemented the minimum measures laid
down for salmonella in Annex III, Section I (Article 10(1) of Directive 92/117/EEC and Article 1(4) of Directive
97/22/EC)?
How many cases of salmonella have been recorded each year in poultry breeding flocks in the different Member
States since 1992? How many cases have been recorded in humans during the same period?
C 304/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 10. 98

In addition, Directive 92/117/EEC lays down a whole series of compulsory measures relating to the four
zoonoses defined in Annex I, point I. However, the specific plans (Articles 8 and 10 of Annexes II and III to
Directive 92/117/EEC) only cover salmonella. Do the other three zoonoses not pose a problem? If not, why are
they retained in Annex I, point I?

The WHO has reported an upsurge in infections caused by the campylobacter bacterium. Since this bacterium is
resistant to many antibiotics, should campylobacteriosis not be included in Annex I, point I to Directive
92/117/EEC?

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1997, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 1998)

Article 15a of Council Directive 92/117/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/22/EC, concerning measures
for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin
in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications provides for the Commission to submit a
report to the Council concerning the measures to be implemented for the control and prevention of zoonoses.
Unfortunately the Commission has not been able to respect the time limit of 1 November 1997 to submit this
report due to the priority problems emerging from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the subsequent
fundamental restructuring of the Commission services. However, the Commission is now taking action to
prepare the report. At this stage the Commission is not able to provide any conclusions.

According to Article 10, paragraph 1, of Directive 92/117/EEC Member States shall implement as from 1 January
1998 the minimum measures laid down for salmonella in Annex III, Section I. To this date the Commission has
received notifications as provided in Article 2 of Council Directive 97/22/EC from Germany, Luxemburg,
Austria, Sweden and United Kingdom. Infringement proceedings have been opened against those Member States
which have not yet notified their national provisions. Salmonella control plans in accordance with Article 8,
paragraph 2, of Directive 92/117/EEC have been approved for Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Sweden
(Commission Decisions 94/507/EC, 96/389/EC, 96/390/EC and 96/502/EC, respectively). This approval is a
prerequisite for financial assistance from the Community for the control of salmonella in poultry. So far financial
assistance has been granted only for Denmark.

According to Article 5 of Directive 92/117/EEC Member States are obliged to report annually to the Commission
the trends and sources of zoonotic infections. The Commission evaluates the information supplied by Member
States and reports to the standing veterinary committee. This excercise was carried out for the first time for the
year 1994 and since then on an annual basis. The Commission is currently evaluating the data referring to 1996
and will shortly report to the standing veterinary committee. The 1995 report is forwarded direct to the
Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

Annex I, point I of Directive 92/117/EEC covers tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis; brucellosis,
salmonellosis and trichinosis. The Commission has over several decades developed measures to control or even
eradicate bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis and brucellosis in sheep and goats. Consequently these
zoonoses have been eradicated in the Community or are the subject of advanced eradication and surveillance
programmes. The measures are prescribed inter alia in the appropriate trade directives (e.g. Council Directive
64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine). Those
Member States in which these zoonoses still exist may apply for financial assistance from the Community for
eradication and monitoring programmes. The control and surveillance measures for trichinosis are laid down in
the appropriate meat hygiene directives (e.g. Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health conditions for the
production and the marketing of fresh meat). Since trichinosis is eradicated in most Member States the
Commission is currently considering regionalisation based on scientific criteria in order to allow relief from the
exhaustive sampling of pig meat in areas free from trichinosis. Provisions on hygiene in general and certain
specific measures regarding salmonella have been laid down in various directives providing for the hygiene of
products of animal origin (e.g. Council Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting the production and
placing on the market of fresh poultry meat). Due to the increased number of cases of human salmonellosis
derived from poultry products certain specific measures aimed to control salmonella in poultry were introduced
in Directive 92/117/EEC.
2. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/49

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of certain food-borne diseases (e.g. campylobacteriosis and
enterohaemorrhagic E.coli infections). As is the case for salmonella these zoonotic agents are ubiquitous in the
natural environment and can consequently be isolated at various levels from clinically healthy domestic animals
and from wildlife. Also the possibility of human carriers and infection through other sources (vegetables, water,
pets etc.) must be considered. However, the knowledge of their pathogenicity, virulence and epidemiology is
very sparse and satisfactory routine testing methods are lacking. Expanded surveillance and research is needed to
provide the epidemiological information and appropriate testing methods. Only when such tools are available
can appropriate measures be implemented to identify potentially high-risk animals and to recommend, with
confidence, actions for reducing the prevalence of these zoonotic agents in herds. Meanwhile the Commission is
considering how abattoirs and processing plants can institute practices to reduce contamination and
cross-contamination of food and to avoid recontamination of heat treated products (hazard analysis critical
control point system − HACCP). The Commission intends also to introduce certain concrete measures to
improve slaughter hygiene by preparing the appropriate proposals to amend the existing directives concerning
meat hygiene.

(98/C 304/68) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0194/98
by Antoni Gutiérrez Dı́az (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 January 1998)

Subject: Illegal construction activity with EU funding

In a concession of 19 February 1997, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment made over the use of a
publicly-owned coastal site in the Catalan municipality of Llançà, in the area of Alt Empordà, to the Catalan
regional government (Generalitat) for the purpose of construction work on the Grifeu promenade. This
concession provided for compensation for the compulsory purchase of land and other private rights affected by
the project.

The Directorate-General for Ports and Coasts of the Department of Planning Policy and Public Works of the
Generalitat proceeded to carry out the construction work on the promenade, without receiving final approval of
the plan from the municipality of Llançà and without the existence of the necessary planning project − despite
both being necessary prior conditions for the work to take place.

Since then, the Court of First Instance No 8 of Girona (Gerona) has delivered Judgment No 247/97 of
12 December 1997, which states that the action of the Directorate-General for Ports and Coasts of the
Department of Planning Policy and Public Works of the Generalitat was carried out in a ‘de facto fashion’, and
therefore rules the occupation of the land illegal and orders the property concerned to be returned to its rightful
owners.

The execution of this judgment will entail the demolition of the promenade construction and the associated
buildings, which have already cost some Ptas 75 m. Of this sum, 50% was contributed by the Generalitat and 25%
by the municipality of Llançà, while 25% came from EU funds − specifically, from the Community’s
INTERREG initiative.

Is the Community aware of this investment and of the fact that EU funds were used for a project which was
carried out illegally and whose end-products will now have to be demolished following the court decision?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(26 February 1998)

The Commission will not fail to obtain information from the Spanish authorities on the outcome and
consequences of the state of affairs referred to by the Honourable Member. Subject to verification, it suspects
that, if this is the Interreg IIA programme, the project in question could be Project No 48 (road and beach access
development stage 2 − Llança in Catalonia), which received 50% Community part-financing, i.e. a contribution
of ECU 150 000.

If it receives official confirmation that the court decision is final and irreversible, the Commission will take all
appropriate measures under the circumstances.