You are on page 1of 2


2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/95

(2001/C 261 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0356/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: BSE

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the ‘triangular’ arrangement involving cattle which were
allegedly transported from Turkey to Greece, were then sent to the Salento region and then, after being
dealt with in two slaughterhouses, were taken to Belgium? It seems that some young adult bovine animals
were then transported via two Belgian import-export companies to Italy. They were allegedly sold at a
derisory price because they were considered to be ‘high risk’. The Belgian judiciary became involved, not
least because the animals were allegedly suffering from BSE.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission has no knowledge of this case. For this reason it cannot comment on the specific
allegations. It would be interested to receive any information tending to substantiate them

In general terms it should be noted that Turkey is not allowed to export live cattle to the Community as it
does not fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 72/462/EC of 12 December 1972 (1) on health and
veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh
meat or meat products from third countries. Due to the epidemic of bluetongue in Greece, the movements
of live cattle from Greek territory to other Member States or third countries has been forbidden since
November 1999, in accordance with Greek national legislation and Commission Decision 2000/350/EC of
2 May 2000 on epidemiological surveillance of bluetongue in Greece and certain measures to prevent the
spread of the disease (2).

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972.

(2) OJ L 124, 25.5.2000.

(2001/C 261 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring  aid from the Irish Government

Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in
Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.

However, this restructuring is in danger of being distorted by the fact that Xerox will have to repay
thousands of euros to the Irish Government, granted as an incentive to bring it to Dundalk two years ago,
for each job lost in Ireland.

Does not the Commission feel that these barriers breach the spirit and, possibly, the letter of European
legislation on the establishment of a single European market place?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Xerox plant in Dundalk, which manufactures computers and other information processing equipment,
was awarded initial investment aid in the form of capital and employment grants. Operations at the plant
have started and some of the incentives have been paid.
C 261 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001

The regional aid schemes concerned are approved by the Commission as falling under the derogation
foreseen in Article 87(3) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

The inclusion of requirements in grant agreements that grants paid in respect of specific investments be
repayable if they are not maintained for a number of years is explicitly foreseen under paragraphs 4,10
and 4,14 of the relevant Commission’s guidelines, namely the Guidelines on national regional aid (1). This
provision is aimed at preventing misuse of public money, namely by transferring equipment bought
through State aid to another region, which is not eligible to support. At the same time, the five-year clause
stems from the necessity to ensure the investment aided has an impact on regional development in that
specific region, which would be endangered, were the undertaking allowed to move somewhere else within
a short time.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2001/C 261 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Reducing burdens on business

Could the Presidency please outline clear examples, from each Member State, of specific progress achieved
on Recital 14 of the Lisbon Summit conclusions regarding a reduction in the costs of doing business and
removing unnecessary red tape?


(31 May 2001)

1. The Honourable Member’s question refers to conclusions drawn by the Presidency at the close of the
Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000, and specifically to the following:

The competitiveness and dynamism of businesses are directly dependent on a regulatory climate
conducive to investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Further efforts are required to lower the
costs of doing business and remove unnecessary red tape, both of which are particularly burdensome
for SMEs. The European institutions, national governments and regional and local authorities must
continue to pay particular attention to the impact and compliance costs of proposed regulations, and
should pursue their dialogue with business and citizens with this aim in mind. Specific action is also
needed to encourage the key interfaces in innovation networks, i.e. interfaces between companies and
financial markets, R&D and training institutions, advisory services and technological markets.

2. The conclusions list a whole series of measures for achieving this objective:

 a benchmarking exercise, the first results of which were presented in December 2000;

 a Commission communication on an entrepreneurial, innovative and open Europe;

 a multiannual programme in favour of enterprise and entrepreneurship;

 a European Charter for small companies;

 a review of EIB and EIF financial instruments.