WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2572/97 by Jan MULDER to the Commission. Infectious animal diseases brought in from neighbouring countries of the EU
C 134/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 4. 98 5. The Commission proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products (3) (which is included in the Commissionís action plan for the internal market) does not make any provision for maximum rates of duty and would allow Member States to introduce differential rates without authorisation. As such, therefore, this decision does not affect the Commission draft action plan. 6. The Commission feels that full harmonisation is a long term target and that the interests of the Community in the shorter term will be best served by a combination of agreed minimum rates which are subject to regular increases and a wider tax base along the lines it has put forward in its above › mentioned proposal. As mentioned in point 2 above, Member States are entirely free to decide the level of their national tax rates 7. provided they respect the minimum rates laid down in Community law. However, as indicated at point 3 above, the tax differential introduced by the new law was submitted to the Council as required and has been duly approved. (1) OJ L 316, 31. 10. 1992. (2) Council Decision 97/425/EC. OJ L 182, 10. 7. 1997. (3) OJ C 139, 6. 4. 1997. (98/C 134/16) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (24 July 1997) Subject: Infectious animal diseases brought in from neighbouring countries of the EU 1. Does the Commission agree that the increase in trade and commerce has increased the risk of infectious animal diseases being brought into the European Union from neighbouring countries, such as those of Central and Eastern Europe and the countries around the Mediterranean? If so, does the Commission feel it would be useful to improve veterinary facilities in those countries in 2. order to reduce the risk of infectious animal diseases being brought into the European Union? 3. Can the Commission indicate to what extent appropriations under PHARE and MEDA are already being used for this purpose, and is it prepared to encourage the use of such funds to control infectious diseases in countries where veterinary facilities are inadequate, as this would be in the interests of those countries themselves and of the European Union? Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997) In the case of non-Community countries, and in particular those referred to by the Honourable Member, the 1. Community has armed itself with tools for preventing animal disease from being spread in the Community from imported live animals and animal products: veterinary requirements applying to imports, adoption of protective measures when necessary, and a network of border inspection posts able to make suitable checks. It is nonetheless true that the best guarantee is a high level of animal health in the exporting country. For this an effective veterinary infrastructure is essential. 2. and 3. In the framework of the Phare programme considerable technical and equipment assistance has been and is currently being made available to improve the veterinary control infrastructure in the central and eastern European countries (CEECs), both through the country programmes and on a multi-country basis. In the light of the Commission opinions on membership, technical and investment assistance for the formal adoption of the veterinary áacquis communautaireí and for the improvement of enforcement and control infrastructures will be intensified in the years to come. MEDA could contribute to the financing of measures to improve veterinary infrastructure in the Mediterranean partner countries provided that such measures are included in national indicative programmes